PDA

View Full Version : Assault on Mr Tomlinson


Pages : [1] 2 3

Spunky Monkey
8th Apr 2009, 08:34
G20 Protest: The Attack and Death of Ian Tomlinson

J5693sQEXos

Now there seems to be a rather lot in the media the last couple of days and I can see it getting bigger and bigger.

In the attached video the chap is walkingwith his hands in his pockets. Dragging his feet and I would suggest being rather belligerant.

However it is disturbing to see a Police Officer striking the man from the rear with his hickory stick, then pushing him to the ground.

I would suggest that the police officers with their face masks are directly antagonising the crowd.

This officer is a disgrace to his uniform and also to this country.

However as the police are now more than ever a political tool, do they earn the respect that so many of us give them. I hardly think so.

If I had assaulted a member of the public like that from behind on a saturday night. You can bet your forged pound that I would be arrested for assault.

Ps I don't have long hair and I wash daily.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 08:46
It's just the state of the Police State mate!
No-one will get done for it. You watch the
machine grind into action to cover arses.
How long before someone says, "It's very
sad, but he was in the wrong place at the
wrong time."
The FACT that he actually worked there WON'T matter.

PS, I have got long hair, but do wash at least
twice a week.

27mm
8th Apr 2009, 09:11
"In the attached video the chap is walkingwith his hands in his pockets. Dragging his feet and I would suggest being rather belligerant."

Please explain how this constitutes a belligerant attitude, while walking away from the police officers.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 09:17
No doubt the Police will inform us soon that Mr Tomlinson's passport was out of date or he had an unpaid parking fine, was overdrawn at the bank or on probation and they mistook him for Abdullah Mohamed Amabomba an Ethiopian Muslim Extremist and they had to make an instant decision to take him out as the police dog couldn't walk around him on it's lead, and he looked very untidy to be on National TV.

Another example of how we permit murder in our society when it is conducted by our police. Now remind me why it is we can be done for hurting an intruder in our houses? Oh yes thats it the 'rule of minimum force'.

Poor bloke. RIP Mr Tomlinson

SM
Ps I don't have long hair and I wash daily.

Whats that got to do with it? Doesn't seem like Mr Tomlinson had long hair and I don't recall when not washing daily was a capital offence.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 09:20
ROGER, I absolutely, totally agree.
Just one small question, what if he had shoved the Pig?
Who'd be squealing then?

Bob Viking
8th Apr 2009, 09:23
I saw the video on the news last night and I got more than a little bit p1ssed off!
Whilst I appreciate the Police have a hard job to do and they'd had a hell of a day dealing with a load of other hooligans, to push a guy that hard from behind with his hands in his pockets was bloody ridiculous!
What we don't know is what he had said to them and what happens before the footage etc, but at the end of the day he was not causing a problem at that moment and did not deserve the shove. Who knows if the fall had any link to the heart attack but I bet it didn't help!
At the end of the day a family man has died because of what appears to be an unprovoked attack from someone who should have known better.
Not that it'll help, but with all the compensation given out to lazy layabouts who break a fingernail whilst typing, I'd say his family have a hell of a case!
BV:mad:

Spunky Monkey
8th Apr 2009, 09:32
I am definately not condoning the Polices actions.
I brought this up because I was so angry at this thuggish behaviour of a police officer.
Why do I suuest he was being belligerant? Because if a bunch of police officers surrounded me with nasty assed Alsations I would not be hanging around.

With being on the side of the Law in many demonstartions in NI I have a fair understanding of what it is like to be on the receiving end of an angry crowd.
The police in this case were not.

This officer has a mental problem and was looking for trouble.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 09:44
Bob

Good post, but just for clarity

What we don't know is what he had said to them and what happens before the footage etc, is irrelevant the 'rule of minimum force' applies

but at the end of the day he was not causing a problem at that moment and did not deserve the shove100% correct.

This is an example of why it is wise that we do not arm our police (having said that the end result is the same in this case, a bang on the head or a bullet, they both work)

playing devils advocate and trying to give our normal 'bobby' the benifit of the doubt.....

I know this sounds really really stupid, (but I have not seen the UK news concerning this) but the action by the policeman seems so out of character with the rest of the group walking by Mr Tomlinson, and then the copper seems to disappear, leaving the other police officers looking at each other as if to say 'WTF!" Is it possible that this was not a police officer? It would be very easy to mingle with the police if you dressed up as one and joined up with them on a day when there are thousands deployed on the streets. Just a thought.

Rollingthunder
8th Apr 2009, 09:44
I really regret to say I am losing all respect for the police around here.
RCMP, they are a adolescent joke these days. Nice dress uniforms, small brains.
Vancouver City Police seized a news photographer's camera yesterday and threatened him with arrest for reporting, not interfering, at a crime scene.

Most of them seem to be of the high school jock variety, very short on brains, big in neck size and tackled just once too often.

If they can't get something done about the gang problem here, they will be branded as utter incompetents forever. Perhaps they are there already. :ugh:

ozzienpg
8th Apr 2009, 09:47
some bloke dragging his heels holding up a police line moving forward? what are they supposed to do, walk round him and let him attack them from behind?

typical anti-establishment attitude shown by the man, was trying to get a rise from the police and he got one.

since when does falling over cause a heart attack? sounds like he wasnt too well before the incident... and definately not well enought to be protesting.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 09:54
Quite a shift there Roger, from suggesting it may be murder to suggesting it may have been someone dressed as a cop. There were actually arrests of civilians dressed as cops a couple of days back, so maybe not beyond the realms of possibility. Although I would think the purpose of dresssing as cops would not be to mix with them?

I don't know anything about the incident and am not prepared to speculate about what happened before the footage, however I doubt in anyone's wildest dreams it is murder by any definition.

Looks like this is going to be another trial by PPRuNe without the facts!

sitigeltfel
8th Apr 2009, 09:54
A few points regarding this unfortunate mans death.

I spoke to a friend who is a Sergeant covering the Heathrow area and was drafted into the centre to help out with the demo. He said that the actions of that policeman were typical of someone who was sent to police an area that is not their own manor. He knows he has to keep an eye on some of the more intolerant members of his team lest they treat the whole thing as a days sport. The same attitude prevailed during the miners strike in the early eighties when police were rounded up from all over England to go and sort out Scargills mobs.

There is a saying that if you fly with the crows you will be shot with them, but he seems to have been caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is a pity the video does not pick up what was said and I have tried to make out what the logo and writing on the victims T shirt shows. Does it depict some sort of message that would lead the police to believe he had some sympathy for the demonstration? This is not an excuse for the unprovoked assault on him, but it may have given the impression that he was not just some innocent bystander trying to get home. Trying to tell that to the police on the day would have been futile anyway, given the confinement techniques they were using.

The stupidity of the police group, not just the one who carried out the assault is staggering. Did they really think, that on a day where a large majority of the people in the area would be carrying some form of camera, that footage of the incident would not appear? The police had probably formed a tribe mentality which would lead them to treat others as a threat regardless of any evidence of hostility towards them. “Get your retaliation in first and show them who is boss,” would be what they were thinking, and a lack of discipline and control by the senior officers present would contribute to this.

We need the police, but incidents like this show that there is a lot to be done in selection, training and command.

Spunky Monkey
8th Apr 2009, 09:56
Trying to get a rise from the police.

They are trained not to get a rise.
That is the whole point of the police.
Not to go around handing out a bit of shoe to what was generally a peaceful protest.

I am not a Liberal or a softie. However I do believe in the right of the law and the professionalism of it custodians.

The right of public debate, protest and freedom are being very quickly erroded in the UK.

Bob Viking
8th Apr 2009, 09:58
There was a programme on Channel 4 last night called 'The Hospital'.
It showed various youngsters coming to various forms of grief (mostly due to alcohol).
Towards the end a young lad was brought in who had been knocked out (we are to presume as the result of a fight). After several days of trying to revive him, he died. My brother had a friend who died in very similar circumstances (knock on the head outside a pub - died).
So what is my point you ask?!
We seem to be living in a society where no-one seems aware of the consequences of their actions. Without getting all hippy-dippy, life is a fragile thing and some people just seem so unaware of how easily the human body can fail us.
The Police Officer who shoved Mr Tomlinson didn't think about what he was doing, but he did it anyway and the guy died. Completely unneccessarily.
There was no need to do what he did and now a family are without their Dad/Husband.
BV / Modern day hippy!
:8

tr0tsky
8th Apr 2009, 09:58
I'm glad that this video has come to light. Finally there may be a glimmer, a slight possibility, that perhaps some justice may be done.

What annoys me is how quickly people change their tune. When reports were coming in that the police were being brutal and heavy-handed at the demonstration, there were cries of "chuffing hippies, get jobs and have a wash". Comments on more right-leaning blogs, forums and websites were congratulating the amazing job that the police had done, that reports of police-instigated violence were false and that protesters (the vast majority of them peaceful) were making it up because of some anti-establishment chips on their shoulders.

When news came out that somebody had been killed the Daily Mail printed that the police were bottled and had bricks thrown at them when they tried to help the man. This is shown to be a lie.

The Daily Mail printed that protesters had prevented ambulances reaching the scene. This is shown to be a lie.

It appears that there was a gang of violence-prone, masked instigators at the demonstration. And they killed a man that day.

Blacksheep
8th Apr 2009, 10:00
In the attached video the chap is walking with his hands in his pockets. Dragging his feet and I would suggest being rather belligerant.
Mr. Tomlinson was not a protestor. He is well known in the area as a street newspaper vendor and was on his way home from work. If he seemed belligerant, it is most likely he was upset at the peace of his regular working environment being disturbed and at having his earnings cut by the the goings on. If keeping the Queen's peace has descended to coshing to death a peaceful newpaper vendor going about his lawful business, it is indeed a sad day for the silent majority.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 10:00
ozzienpg

some bloke dragging his heels holding up a police line moving forward? what are they supposed to do, walk round him and let him attack them from behind?

If you would describe a group of police ambling along as a police line then go ahead, but it did not resemble a police line to me. Are you seriously trying to say that the actions you see are justified? Let me guess you are a copper? No!, let me take another guess, you thought the police job on De Menzes was ok?

since when does falling over cause a heart attack?

Well tripping over getting out the car was enough to kill my grandmother. Why do you think a violent fall on cement when you are unable to put your hands down properly for correct protection is not going to seriously hurt someone?

Sprogget
8th Apr 2009, 10:04
We don't know whether Mr. Tomlinson verbally provoked the policeman, trained not to rise to it or not. However, it is clear that the response (if that is what it was) is out of all proportion to any possible provocation.

This doesn't mean we have a problem with the met, but it does mean there is at least one copper who should at the very least be thinking a few things over this morning.

As others have said, had the situation been reversed, Mr. Tomlinson would have found himself before a magistrate in short order.

Bob Viking
8th Apr 2009, 10:05
Please don't confuse this with the De Menezes case.
You see where my sympathies lie with regard to Mr Tomlinson, but the Stockwell case is entirely different.
Yes I have some insider knowledge and no I won't say what it is!
BV:=

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 10:08
Falling over, even with hands in pockets, is unlikely to cause a heart attack without there being exisiting health issues.

From what is seen (there be be more to it) it is unacceptable behaviour but to suggest it caused a heart attack is irresponsible!

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 10:09
Bob

Is your other name ozzienpg? If so you are forgetting who is answering, if not you did not read who my post was for;)

BabyBear
From what is seen (there be be more to it) it is unacceptable behaviour but to suggest it caused a heart attack is irresponsible!

Please cut and paste in a post below, where I have said that. Perhaps you ought to be a little more responsible with your reading and comprehension of posts. Grow up BabyBear.

tr0tsky
8th Apr 2009, 10:14
The most sensible comment I think I've ever seen on the Daily Wail's website:

I hope those people earlier in the week who were commenting that the police were justified in their actions at the protest are suitably ashamed now

Bob Viking
8th Apr 2009, 10:15
That's not the point. Do you think he would have had a heart attack at that point if he hadn't just face planted into the pavement?
Maybe, but I doubt it! Yes the condition was probably pre-existing but the fall didn't do him any favours!
BV:=

ozzienpg
8th Apr 2009, 10:23
this shouldnt be turned into a police witch hunt (again). IF the officer is guilty of an unprovoked attack, then HE should be punished. however, do not blame the force as a whole.

Those protesters lost my sympathy when they decided to make their bed with anyone and everyone, including the anarchists and trouble makers.

the sri lankan protest has been carried out with dignity.

unlike the uruly rabble that congregated on the city.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 10:31
Only two of the Sri Lankans actually jumped into the water.
Probably the rest couldn't swim?

ozzienpg. That was the whole point of the bl**dy protest.
There HAVE to be people that are on the fringe of society.
You wouldn't get a few thousand of the Establishment
involved in that sort of thing would you?
The people MOST affected by the way things are going
are entitled to HAVE a point of view. It's called Democracy.
You don't agree? OK go somewhere else. I suggest Burma.
Nice climate there I've heard.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 10:33
"Another example of how we permit murder in our society when it is conducted by our police."


This is what I interpreted as you suggesting that, not only did it cause a heart attack, but it was murder.

Seems to me that you are the one only too ready to jump in with an adolescent attitude condemning the police, and making wild suggestions without any concrete evidence to back it up and based solely on a short video.

Bob,

I agree it is not acceptable behaviour and that it may have contributed to the heart attack occurring at that time, but it seems to me it was only a matter of time before it happened if left untreated.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 10:33
ozzienpg

The reason these things turn into Police witch hunts is because the police force try to cover up what happened and lie to the general public aka JCdM.

IF the officer is guilty of an unprovoked attack,

The officer IS guilty of an unprovoked attack. It doesn't matter if Mr Tomlinson told the officer that 'his mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries', the attack was unjustified.

BV
you haven't answered are you ozzienpg? I was not replying to you. Bye the way you use the := smiley way too much :=

tr0tsky
8th Apr 2009, 10:36
Ozzie, your thought process is pretty funny.

"Don't label all of the police the same, the one naughty one is not a reflection on the wider police force."

immediately followed by

"those protesters are all the same, if a minority of violent-types infiltrated their protest than they ALL deserve what the get."

Sprogget
8th Apr 2009, 10:36
Some fantastic stonewalling from the Police federation this morning on the Today prog. Chap started off saying he couldn't talk about individual cases, then went on to talk about individual incidents not involving Mr. Tomlinson, then suggested it was a small incident. Even Dando the feeble wasn't having that one.

ozzienpg
8th Apr 2009, 10:38
The officer IS guilty of an unprovoked attack.

well that was the quickest court case i've ever seen

Avitor
8th Apr 2009, 10:40
The policeman will be identified, he will state the reason why he pushed the fellow, it will move on from there. Probably an autopsy will determine the medical condition of the deceased and further, unbiased statements will emerge

What we think with regard to motive is irrelevant. The buck sits on the Home Secretary's desk.

<which raises a fair question>

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 10:41
Exactly, if that does not constitute a witch hunt I don't know what does.

I guess poor Rog has had a bad experience with the boys in blue.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 10:42
You've been found guilty I'm afraid.
Of being a right ******, (it rhymes with anchor)

Bob Viking
8th Apr 2009, 10:44
I can confirm that this is my only handle. No idea who ozzie is.
I was merely trying to avoid this thread drawing too many parallels with the Stockwell case.
I shall try to avoid the use of the := in future.
To spice things up a little, how's this?!
:bored::}:confused::uhoh::mad::rolleyes::hmm::ugh::zzz::8:O: D:p
BV;)
(in petulant child mode!)

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 10:46
BabyBear

This is what I interpreted as you suggesting that, not only did it cause a heart attack, but it was murder.

Now you have gone back and made that up or you would have put it in your first post to me, admit it. You are telling a little LH aren't you?

and that it may have contributed to the heart attack occurring at that time, but it seems to me it was only a matter of time before it happened if left untreated.

So Dr BabyBear, just what does your x-ray vision spot in the video that can diagnose this complex condition? Seems like you are making wild suggestions without any concrete evidence to back it up and based solely on a short video.

So you think the actions may have contributed to the heart attack? Well that is unlawful killing at best. I have a shock for you Dr BabyBear, we all die of a heart attack, it doesn't matter if it's cancer or you are shot in the stomach, or you get a potato stuck in your throat, it all leads to you ticker stopping and thats what kills you. If this policeman has done anything to accelerate that process, he has killed Mr Tomlinson. Geez, I can just see the Met, using your story it was only a matter of time before it happened if left untreated

Now isn't it time for the school holidays to be over?

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 10:49
No, they're off for the rest of the week. Sorry.

radeng
8th Apr 2009, 10:55
The Met have always had a poor reputation with other forces. A retired Assistant Chief Constable I knew from a County force (he's dead now) told me 'The Met? Stand 'em in a corner and if their hands can reach to their knees and they can grunt, they're in!'

Obviously an exaggeration, but this was a guy who had served in several forces and spent two years lecturing at the Police college at Bremhill.

Now compare what happened in London with the Wiltshire copper who the other week, dived into a flooded river to get trapped woman out of her car. Seems a lot of differece in attitude. sitigeltfelt in #12 probably has it right - coppers not on their own manor have a different attitude.

Tyres O'Flaherty
8th Apr 2009, 11:00
The Police officer is going to have to man up & take his medicine, via the law that he undertook to uphold. There will be public outcry if he is not punished to the fullest extent possible.

I have got not the slightest bit of time for these protesty unwashed scum, whom I have a multitude of experience of in my professional capacity, but if this officer is not so dealt with, it will only reinforce the ''alternative'' viewpoint.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 11:01
Stormin

:{:{:{:ugh:;)

Ozzienpg

well that was the quickest court case i've ever seen

According to the Police Rules of Engagement, was Mr Tomlinson indicating that he was a violent threat to either the Police in attendance, members of the general public or public property? If so he should have been suitably restrained using minimum force by an appropriate number of officers. If there was any verbal intimidation by Mr Tomlinson then the Polices ROE do not permit the response we see on the video. The Policeman we see has acted outside of the ROE. Simple, open and shut, the court is a necessary expensive formality which should find the officer guilty, as will the inevitable Police Inquiry.

ozzienpg
8th Apr 2009, 11:04
According to the Police Rules of Engagement, was Mr Tomlinson indicating that he was a violent threat to either the Police in attendance, members of the general public or public property? If so he should have been suitably restrained using minimum force by an appropriate number of officers. If there was any verbal intimidation by Mr Tomlinson then the Polices ROE do not permit the response we see on the video. The Policeman we see has acted outside of the ROE. Simple, open and shut, the court is a necessary expensive formality which should find the officer guilty, as will the inevitable Police Inquiry.im not here to start an argument, but this is surely the same as speculating the cause of an accident or guessing the contents of an AAIB report, which is frowned upon, on this forum.

HKPAX
8th Apr 2009, 11:08
There in a very thoughtful leader on this appalling event in today's Grauniad Editorial: G20 protests - police have a case to answer | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-police-g20-protests)

G-CPTN
8th Apr 2009, 11:12
An acquaintance of Mr Tomlinson has been speaking on BBC Radio Five. He said that before he got his job as a newspaper seller he was known to beg around the area, making it clear that this was to feed his alcohol habit. Of course there is no evidence to suggest that he was intoxicated at the time of the attack, but it might explain his 'gait' and his unawareness of the proximity of his attackers or the likelihood of him being attacked.
It seems probable that Mr Tomlinson was an innocent member of the public who was in the area because he was returning from his work and was caught up in the proceedings.

Collateral damage (not that that justifies it).

There has also been a freelance photographer talking who said that there was an earlier incident where Mr Tomlinson was 'grounded' and beaten by a Police Officer using a baton. She wasn't able to photograph this event. No doubt those bruises would have been discovered at the autopsy . . .

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 11:14
I am as much a doctor as you are judge and jury, which you seem to be adopting here.

Generally speaking people in good health don't fall over and have a heart attack as a result. My comment is based on nothing more than this. But it seems you have ruled that it is only you that can offer suggestions or senarios, ridiculous and irresponsible as they are.

The evidence for you accusing them of murder is??

sitigeltfel
8th Apr 2009, 11:15
Simple, open and shut, the court is a necessary expensive formality which should find the officer guilty, as will the inevitable Police Inquiry.

Guilty of what though? Manslaughter, unlawful killing, assault causing actual bodily harm? I doubt very much that the DPP would opt for a murder charge as there has to be indication of intent.

As for identifying the officer, there were plenty others around him who now that this is in the open will be only to keen to cover their ar:mad:s by either shopping him or "persuading" him to come forward. The canteen culture will that ensure his name will spread like wildfire and I presume he is now regularly changing his underwear.

HKPAX
8th Apr 2009, 11:16
Ozzienpg: the difference may be that as far as I can see an air accident enquiry is carried out by objective independent professionals - the worst I have seen is evidence on PPrune that aircraft makers and operators may try to "lean on" such an enquiry. Securing the same degree of objectivity in this kind of event is a much greater challenge - viz the Menedez case - and is a political challenge. Waiting for the results of a police enquiry is NOT an acceptable option.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 11:17
Not murder, possible manslaughter. Murder is different innit?

BB, We might not have any JUDGES, but a lot of us Have been
on juries. You might have to sometime. Gordelpus.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
8th Apr 2009, 11:18
Having been on the receiving end of a trucheon at football before (for no offence whatsoever, other than being nearest to the policeman striking out), it is time that these officers were at the very least, charged with assault, in the same way the culprits hitting police with an iron bar will be.

The man concerned I understand was not even part of the protest and to have the back of your leg struck in that way and pushed to the ground when your is back turned and your hands in your pockets is despicable and contemptible.

I hope the Officer concerned is having sleepless nights, whether or not he contributed to this mans death.

Tyres O'Flaherty
8th Apr 2009, 11:22
Sitgefelt


Manslaughter.

Anything else will be unacceptable & also would most likely generate serious public disorder.

I wouldn't condone it, but I'd be happy to bet money on it occurring.

Blacksheep
8th Apr 2009, 11:27
but it seems to me it was only a matter of time before it happened if left untreated. Like most of the people on PPRuNe, I'm alive and well - but its just a matter of time if left untreated. :hmm:

mona lot
8th Apr 2009, 11:28
A truly shocking video. I counted atleast 10 policemen/women most in riot gear. It only takes 2 people to easily restrain 1 person.

What's really worrying is why did none of the police see if he was alright after his assault, instead of standing around like lemons.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 11:35
Lemons? In HiViz jackets?
Have they NO fashion sense as well?

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 11:36
Just for your benefit; I was suggesting the possibility that it was a matter of time before a pre existing heart condition resulted in a heart attack, regardless of the police intervention:ugh:

Sprogget
8th Apr 2009, 11:38
Babybear, I contend that the policeman shoving Mr. Tomlinson precipitated his heart attack.

I no more know that to be the case than you know it wasn't. Case closed, please move on.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 11:40
So the police are just guilty of speeding things along then?
Hmmm, never thought of that. Interesting theory.
But will it be admissible as evidence in the end?

I've no doubt that will be PART of the defences' case.
He was a p*sshead your Honour. Could've gone at ANY
time you know.
What sort of medical theory does that statement come from?
All p*ssheads are going to have a heart attack fairly SOON?

ozzienpg
8th Apr 2009, 11:40
surely his alcohol probolem would have contributed to a heart attack?

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 11:43
sitigeitfel

Guilty of what though? Manslaughter, unlawful killing, assault causing actual bodily harm? Take your pick, but there is black and white evidence just as on any cctv that he has acted outside his ROE. He has committed a crime. Those that try to justify it is just plain silly.

ozzienpg

It is nothing like the speculation on an aircraft accident. Regardless of the cause of Mr Tomlinsons death, this video shows the policeman committing a criminal act. There is no speculation needed. There is nothing Mr tomlinson is doing at that time that justifies the response, there is nothing that he can have spoken that would permit the response.

surely his alcohol probolem would have contributed to a heart attack?utterly utterly irrelevant! mmm next time I want to do me a mugging I will pick on a drunk or someone with cancer, or maybe just a really fat person and when I am done for stabbing him I will claim 'but he would have died eventually anyway':ugh::ugh:

What is the minimum age entry for this site?

Dr BabyBear
I am as much a doctor as you are judge and jury, which you seem to be adopting here.My responses are to clear video evidence of the actions of the police officer. On what basis do you claim to have made your medical diagnosis?

Generally speaking people in good health don't fall over and have a heart attack as a result.He did not 'fall over', he was hit with a wooden stick and then violently pushed to the ground. His state of health is of no consequence. If the autopsy discovers that the violent push to the ground caused a set of reactions that subsequently led to Mr Tomlinsons death then thats it. If it shows that is not the case, then the police officer is guilty of assault at the least.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 11:59
My experience of seeing people fall and not have heart attacks and of the usual identification of a pre existing problem where people do die suddenly, is the basis for my post.

For clarification people don't generally get pushed over, get up apparently unhurt and have a heart attack, without a pre exisitng condition. Don't need to be a doctor to know that. I am sure even you have seen many folks fall over, but how many have you witnessed have a heart attack as a result, never mind have a heart attack without a pre existing condition?

I don't know what your bad experience with the law has been Roger, but you really shouldn't let it cloud your judgement resulting in ludicrous and dangerous irresponsible claims.

The police officer was clearly in the wrong, however to suggest, from your armchair that;

a) it was murder
b) the heart attack was the result of the fall/push and there was no pre exisiting condition
c) the police will cover it up

is irresponsible and would not only make you judge and jury but also a doctor able to diagnose no pre existing condition from a short video.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 12:08
BabyBear

The police officer was clearly in the wrong, however to suggest, from your armchair that;

a) it was murder
b) the heart attack was the result of the fall/push and there was no pre exisiting condition
c) the police will cover it upNow where have I said all of that BabyBear? Where have I said that the police will cover it up? Where have I said that there was no pre existing condition blah blah.. Must I remind you it is YOU that is commenting on Mr Tomlinson's medical condition.

I don't know what your bad experience with the law has been Roger, but you really shouldn't let it cloud your judgement resulting in ludicrous and dangerous irresponsible claims.Where have I ever said I have had a bad experience with the law? Nothing is clouding my judgement, and what is it that I have said that constitutes
ludicrous and dangerous irresponsible claims.

Blacksheep
8th Apr 2009, 12:08
resulted in a heart attack, regardless of the police interventionI know that BabyBear, but there is legal precedent that a pre-existing medical condition of a victim, whether known or unknown, is not a mitigating factor unless the outcome is shown to be too remote and unlikely to be forseen by a reasonable person. It is the act and the outcome that matter and a police officer would know that from his training.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 12:13
Are the fuzz that well qualified to assess a medical condition
in a two second glance before attacking someone? No.
BUT, under the circumstances, the chap that DIED did have
a heart problem, and WAS un-lawfully assaulted, LEADING
to his death from a heart attack.
Brought on by actually BEING assaulted. For NO reason.
What part of "There has to be an investigation into this"
do you hsve problems understanding?
WHY do you feel that the Officer involved shouldn't take
responsibility for HIS actions?

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 12:21
Ah, now that does make some sense and if that is the case then there may indeed be a case to answer.

Roger,

I have already quoted where you say it is murder, I will leave it at that.:confused:

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 12:43
Dr Baby Bear

Now you can't leave it at that. Where did I say

b) the heart attack was the result of the fall/push and there was no pre exisiting condition
c) the police will cover it up These could be construed as
ludicrous and dangerous irresponsible claims. Now pertaining to the laws of defamation of character, my character has been defamed by you in your quote above, therefore show where I have said it or withdraw it. By law you must do that with a public apology to ensure any third party who has read what you have written is aware that you made an error and do not intend to defame me.

Bye the way pertaining to Murder yes I used the term Murder.

mur·der (mûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr)n.1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flock)1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr.1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 12:52
You are boring me know, I am off to count the daisies in my garden, it will be much more entertaining.

Keep up the speculation!

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 12:57
Dr BabyBear
Funny how you become bored when you are unable to justify your own arguments. I hope there are not too many daisies in your garden.

There is no speculating with the crime on the video.

parabellum
8th Apr 2009, 13:00
So here we have a clip from non other than, wait for it, The Guardian!!

Has it been edited, has anyone bothered to check? Does anyone know of the exchange before the film was taken? Was Tomlinson told to move back behind the line of bollards and did he show a reluctance to do so?


Take your pick, but there is black and white evidence just as on any cctv that he has acted outside his ROE. He has committed a crime. Those that try to justify it is just plain silly.



I suggest it is you, Roger, that is being very silly because you don't even know if you have seen the entire video evidence nor do you know of any circumstances that lead up to the incident. Certainly wouldn't want to have you on any jury judging me, and then you try to go all 'butch' and threaten Baby Bear! Whatever next!

lexxity
8th Apr 2009, 13:05
Was Tomlinson told to move back behind the line of bollards and did he show a reluctance to do so?

Does that make it ok to then assault him and then stand around doing nothing? Maybe Mr Tomlinson was behaving the way he did because he knew he was nothing to do with the protesters, maybe he knew he was innocent and maybe that was what antagonised the coppers. Whatever happened the response was too heavy handed. Had he done something worthy of being arrested then one assumes that the officers would have done just that. To my eyes this appears to be thuggery plain and simple.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 13:07
Parabellum

I wouldn't threaten BabyBear do calm down, play with him yes, threaten no.

As for your opinion on whatever happened before the film was taken it is completely irrelevant. Mr Tomlinson is walking away albeit slowly, the rule of minimum force was NOT adhered to. It is as simple as that. Now you are a lot older than BabyBear Parabellum, I would expect more.

nor do you know of any circumstances that lead up to the incident

There are not any that justify the actions by the Policeman at the time of the incident.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
8th Apr 2009, 13:07
So here we have a clip from non other than, wait for it, The Guardian!!

And the problem with the American who took the footage giving it to the Guardian being ?

Looks fairly black and white to me. He was assaulted from behind.

Sir Lee B´stard
8th Apr 2009, 13:20
There is no question of murder in this tragic case. Murder requires malice aforethought with the intention to cause death or bodily harm. Had the blow with the baton been aimed to the head or neck then that might be a very different matter. Nonetheless, the video shows nothing that could justify such a vicious battery from behind. Am I alone in thinking that this unfortunate man was just ambling along in front of a group of slowly moving policemen who did not appear to form a coherent line at the time? He certainly does not seem to offer any threat or provocation.

airship
8th Apr 2009, 13:20
Noone has yet commented on this earlier BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7988828.stm) specifically: Earlier, Mr Tomlinson's family made an appeal for witnesses.

A statement from the family said: "Ian was a massive football fan and would have looked distinctive in his Millwall top.

"He was probably on his way back from work to watch the England match and got caught up in the crowds."
(Emphasis added...)

Mr. Tomlinson was apparently a Millwall FC fan. Well that should explain it I believe. Mr. Tomlinson was obviously under the impression that he was 'already in the stiles' (or in front of the TV in his front room) and/or the police officer involved temporarily forgot that they weren't in Bermondsey and/or when confronted by what appeared to be a surly football hooligan (whether or not the deceased ever was a hooligan, or being surly), the PC summarily decided to dosh out 'the treatment'...?! :ok::uhoh:

AndoniP
8th Apr 2009, 13:24
half of the coppers there were probably draughted in from god knows what other backward forces around the country. lots of football/riot coppers are TSG - territorial support group - not the smartest old bill by any means.

yeah they're doing a job but for some of them it's just a chance to baton the cr*p out of people because they like it.

some of the comments on here are funny though; you can tell the ones by people who have never come across this kind of policing before. happens all over the place all the time this is just one that has been made public.

good thing the coppers couldn't suppress this video and any photos because of the sheer number of photos being taken. nice try lying through the media and being caught out.

sitigeltfel
8th Apr 2009, 13:28
So here we have a clip from non other than, wait for it, The Guardian!!

Don't shoot the messenger.

I would have expected any newspaper given this footage to have put it in the public domain, regardless of its editorial stance. The American who took the footage obviously felt it wise to wait until he returned home before releasing it. That in itself says a lot about the reputation the police are attracting.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 13:30
Sir Lee

Murder requires malice aforethought with the intention to cause death or bodily harm.

Therein lies the problem. I am sure the family lawer will be arguing that to move up behind an unarmed man who is not posing a threat walking away from the Police and hit them with a truncheon and then violently push them over is indeed malice aforethought and will knowingly cause bodily harm. I am sure the Police Officer did not intend to kill Mr Tomlinson, however there are many people in UK prisons for Murder who have hit somebody, never meaning to kill them, but they did.

airship
8th Apr 2009, 13:45
Ahh but, Roger Sofarover, you're forgetting that: "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." (attributed to Winston Churchill) A phrase (or variations thereof) that is oft-repeated here within JB but especially the hamster-wheel threads by certain individuals, by way of excusing the rare and minor 'excesses' (in the wider overall context) of mainly brave, wholesome individuals who have all our best interests 'at heart'... :ok: :}

OFSO
8th Apr 2009, 13:54
In a city with four times the number of CCTV cameras found in any other European country (not to mention in the paranoid USA) does no one else find it strange that no record of this incident has been captured on offical media, and that all of the pictures of this come from amateur shots by phone 'cams ?

If the CCTV cameras have not recorded this little piece of state-sponsored violence, what is the point of the surveillance we are all subjected to against our will ?

And if they HAVE.......

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 14:12
OFSO. You drop a bit of litter round there and you'll find out
what the true purpose of all those cameras is.
Fixed Penalty fines of about £60 for that sort of "Antisocial"
behaviour!
So watch it mate, or else!

vonbag
8th Apr 2009, 14:29
Sorry I have to intervene: I agree with everything that was written by Roger Sofarover, Storminnorm, etc.: I can't add anything to that.
Only one observation:
Well yes, a physical trauma to the chest can exacerbate a precarious heart condition.
But here we do not only have the evidence of physical trauma,
inflicted gratuitously, but also of mental trauma.
That Sir was thrown on the ground, those people were there, still,
looking at him as a fallen sack of potatoes,
these very people who are paid to guarantee his security and safety.
I am sure, putting myself in the shoes of this Sir, he must have suffered of a -- probably unprecedented --excess of rage, which he tried to repress, apparently, bottling it in himself.
So much anger, feeling of impotence and frustration caused by that episode are, in my way of seeing it, contributing factors -- thus besides the physical trauma -- to the very sad epilogue.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 14:43
Right vonbag. Now can you TRY to explain that to some of the
OTHER people on this thread that seem to think that the chap
was just another target for the Police to have a go at?

In some cases you may have to break it down into smaller words.

vonbag
8th Apr 2009, 14:45
P.S.: still in my point of view, this is not minimally camparable to the speculation that can originate copiously, due to the very large number of potentially contributing factors and variables, regarding what caused an aircraft accident, when it was in flight.
It's more like a bus hitting an aircraft whilst stopped on the ground, that being filmed, and a suicidal note of the bus driver being found in his closet, moreover. There would not be much left to speculate as to what are the causes of the aircraft to fail and burst in flames in this last case IMO

PPRuNe Radar
8th Apr 2009, 14:58
Not exactly the same in terms of the level of assaut made on Mr Tomlinson, but in this case below, where the victim actually died of a heart attack rather than the direct effects of the assault, the initial charge in court was murder.

The eventual outcome was that the attacker admitted culpable homicide and was sentenced accordingly.

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Woman admits car park row killing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4510401.stm)

The police had enough cause to proceed in this case, so there is precedent for an equal consideration for the case of Mr Tomlinson.

Further post mortem detail can be found in an Appeal Court judgement here:

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. CAROL McMILLAN, 04 November 2005, Lord Justice General+Lord Kingarth+Lord Osborne (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005HCJAC119.html)

The telling part in that case is this statement, which may also be applicable to the case of Mr Tomlinson:

Examination also disclosed that the deceased suffered from undiagnosed coronary artery disease, involving a narrowing of the arteries. In these circumstances sudden death could occur if there was a sudden reduction in blood flow or if there was a major increase in demand due to physical or mental stress. In such a case instability of the electrical system of the heart might occur. It is clear that in the present case the stress caused the deceased's condition to become unstable, with an increase in the myocardial demand for blood, an increase in heart rate and blood pressure and resulting in myocardial infarction

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 15:12
And that just about sums up the situation.
But she wasn't in the Police Force was she?

G-CPTN
8th Apr 2009, 15:13
A caller to BBC Radio Five this morning said that he had attended the 'protest' together with his girlfriend.
His girlfriend (he said) was diminutive in stature, and, after a 'charge' by burly Police (during which she was trampled and lost her shoes) she approached a WPC and asked to be let out of the cordon. The WPC replied that she would have to stay - and if she didn't like it she shouldn't have come. In the ensuing conversation it was made clear that the WPC was of the opinion that members of the public should be prevented from protesting.
So much for free speech?

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 15:28
I believe that there are moves afoot to prevent the Police
using this sort of action in future.
I think they call it "Kenneling" and there could be moves
from the European Court to get it banned, as it MAY constitute
an offence of false imprisonment under European Legislation.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 15:39
PPRuNe Radar

Thanks for that post. Very interesting.

airship
8th Apr 2009, 15:43
Above all, it's "the price" we're all expected to bear nowadays when accommodating such events...?! When viewed from the angle of simple citizens, the disruption to daily lives and increased dangers posed to the average citizen of holding these G20, NATO or whatever events where they often are, should indeed require a 'rethink' IMHO. Invariably, the politicians are always very well protected.

But it's probably about time, all things considered, that such events are in future, limited only to areas well out of town, where maximum protection can be afforded to politicians whilst the local population can go about their daily lives without undue hindrance.

More often than not though, these governmental gatherings are still regarded as being beneficial for the local economies involved supposedly...?! But as anyone who has ever lived in one of these 'blessed communities' will probably attest to however, the whole experience was nothing less than a nightmare - and that's just taking the traffic circulation / prohibitions and simply accessing one's residence...?! :mad:

It's about time Europe had its' own Camp David or whatever, where all such summits and activities were allowed to carry on, preferably about 2,000m up somewhere in the French Alpes, in category 5 areas at risk of avalanches...:ok:

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 15:55
Going back to the link P Radar posted, the poor woman involved died 50 minutes later, her attacker was found guilty. There are a few on here who seem to be separating the events with Mr Tomlinson in terms of the assault by the police officer and his heart attack. After the assault, Mr Tomlinson moved approximately 100M before collapsing, this was a matter of minutes after the assault. The time of death is given later after police medics render first aid and a Doctor then certifys him as dead. To suggest the two incidents are somehow seperate and unrelated is plain ridiculous. To suggest 'well he would have died eventually from a heart attack' is an insult to common decency.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 15:55
What about Lundy Island? Stuff the seabirds!!!

Nice and isolated for the "Important" people.

Lots of the Fuzz floating around to keep out intruders.

Sir Lee B´stard
8th Apr 2009, 16:58
P Radar's post is interesting and relevant but the link between blows and subsequent death is, in that case, far stronger than that of Tomlinson. Kicking someone repeatedly in the face is certain to have serious and foreseeable consequences. In no way do I condone the disgraceful conduct shown on the video and had Tomlinson fallen to the ground and received further blows then I think you would have had a case for unlawful killing. However T, I believe, walked some 300 metres before collapsing and I think, in the absence of other evidence (which may exist) I think you would be very lucky to get a conviction for unlawful killing. That said, I believe that the principle of 'You must take your victim as you find him' still lives in English law?

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 17:19
I'm absolutely sure that being knocked to the ground forcibly
by someone the size of the copper involved would not be good
for anyones' health or wellbeing.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 17:19
Sir Lee

The BBC reporter who has just walked it says '50 yards' and a 'matter of minutes' Surely there is no criteria for the number of blows! He was hit by a truncheon then violently pushed over with a two handed push.

Innocent shopper Kevin Tripp killed by single punch - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4124582.ece)

The Harlow Herald - Harlow: Attacker killed man with single punch outside nightclub (http://www.harlowherald.co.uk/content/hlwherald/news/story.aspx?brand=HLHOnline&category=NewsHarlow&tBrand=HertsCambsOnline&tCategory=newslatestHLH&itemid=WEED23%20Mar%202009%2015%3A53%3A01%3A467)

There appears to be many many cases of death by a single punch with some victims dying 4 days later. All the perpetrators do time.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 17:21
Even if they're coppers Roger? It does affect the situation.

Just doin' me job guv'ner!

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 17:25
Stormin

Of course it will, and therein will lie the injustice.

Storminnorm
8th Apr 2009, 17:28
I agree totally Roger.

vonbag
8th Apr 2009, 17:29
Dear Stormingnorm,
Right vonbag. Now can you TRY to explain that to some of the
OTHER people on this thread that seem to think that the chap
was just another target for the Police to have a go at?

In some cases you may have to break it down into smaller words.

At this point, as you have read, the case has already been widely supported.
Let us just hope that someone gets punished for not respecting the rules,
that any of such accidents will be prevented to happen again,
and that the family will get an adequate compensation at Queen's (not people's!!!) expenses!

Yours sincerely, Paolo

Sir Lee B´stard
8th Apr 2009, 17:33
The problem R S is establishing the link between the blow and the death. In the cases you have cited there could be no doubt of the link, it wasn't a heart attack in either of the cases you have quoted; the deaths in both cases were the direct consequences of an unlawful act. Unless there is a direct link established, say a blood clot from the blow to the thigh - highly unlikely given the timespan - you would be hard pressed to secure a conviction for unlawful killing. We may well see prosecutions out of this but they will be a long way down the scale from murder.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 17:36
We may well see prosecutions out of this but they will be a long way down the scale from murder.

I agree that is how it will and should be, and that is before consideration is given to any other relevant circumstances/evidence.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 17:40
vonbag

Let us just hope that someone gets punished for not respecting the rules,Don't expect any punishments it is likely to lead to disappointment.

Sir Lee

Sure, you raise a good point. But the fact that Mr T had a heart attack 3-4 minutes after standing up is looking pretty bad for the copper. I am sure he will not face punishment though. I hope I am wrong.

Baby Bear

I see you've finished counting the Dasies;)

I agree that is how it will and should be, and that is before consideration is given to any other relevant circumstances/evidence.

Why should it be like that? You seem to think the policeman on the other thread should be banged up for a long time. What consideration do you mean concerning other relevant circumstances/evidence? The Policeman has committed an assault, as a result of which (there is a very high probability of connection and a very low probability of coincidence) a man is dead. I fail to see why you want the other policemans blood, yet you feel this guy warrants your support.

vonbag
8th Apr 2009, 17:51
Hum.....bye bye!

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 17:56
Don't be disheartened vonbag, its the way it is here, that's why so many people are leaving. How's Soesterberg anyway, I have many fond memories of visiting the place.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 17:58
For me the two actions pushing; someone over and doing 94 in a 30, are totally different in as much as very few peole will die by being pushed over whilst none are likely to live if hit by a car doing 94mph. Yes this cop is in the wrong, however it is an extremely unlikely and unfortunate outcome of pushing someone.

wings folded
8th Apr 2009, 18:05
There are several rather hasty assessments followed by judgements being bandied about.

Nobody can tell from this video what took place immediately beforehand.

Let us assume, just for argument's sake, that he had been verbally critical of the police, for example.

I am no expert, but if the gravity of this hypothetical exchange amounted to a breach of the law and warranted arrest, then arrest is what should happen, with all the due process of caution and so forth.

What should not happen is for the poor bloke to be whacked with a baton and then hurled to the floor.

It seems that he had good reason to be where he was. He was trying to go home from his work.

He would have been wiser to take the day off, some might say.

Probably not an economically viable option for a newspaper vendor.

As for the poster who thinks that to have your hands in your pockets and to drag your feet makes you appear belligerant - words almost fail me.

I drag my feet.

I am a cripple (sorry, a person with special needs, or let us just settle on disabled)

I must be careful never to put my hands in my pockets then....

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 18:07
But don't you see BB, the copper in the car never thought he would hit someone, but he did. The copper that knowingly 'violently' assaulted Mr T did not think he would kill him, but he did. The actions of both were outside their respective procedures and as a result 2 people are dead. One used a car, the other used his hands, neither meant to kill, but they have, just like the examples I have linked to of death by a single punch. The arguing is semantics, a guy is hit with a truncheon and thrown at the ground, 4 mins later he collapses and dies, think about it.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 18:18
Agreed neither thought death would be the result of their actions, however the difference is in the expected outcome of of the actions! Think about it Rog.

The other big difference is one officer has been found guilty in court the other has been found guilty by you!

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 18:25
The difference in the expected outcomes is of no matter. What is of consequence is THE outcome. Both are guilty of an illegal action (the driver of course), in this case the assault. The assault will be almost impossible to defend, the outcome was a death. Nobody expected in the other cases that when they punched someone in a moment of rage they would kill them, but they did. Anyway I am going round in circles with you, if you can't see it that's fine. Outta here.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 18:29
See ya Rog, take LH with you please!

Spunky Monkey
8th Apr 2009, 19:14
I am sorry that it has got to 6 pages in less than 12 hours.

I was taught Ikedo, the self defence we use in the Army.

It is the method of using an assailants energy against them. It was supremely effective in deaing with yobs and ner-do-wells in NI.

However this police officer showed no restraint and no skill in crowd control.
It was a thugs push, from behind. Just like angry kids do to each other in the playground.

This is not the sort of action of a professional.

Personally I don't have any issue with a tap from a hickory stick. Although in this case it looked more than that.

It would seem that it was used to unbalance Mr Tomlinson and then a push was used to floor him.

I cannot tel from the video, but could this have been two officers geeing each other up?

Personally I think that there is so much media reporting, we will see several police in the dock for this. The Officer, (or two) his Seargent, the Riot Manager and hopefully - hope above hope - The Home Secretary - The Porn Princess herself. Jackie S...

Captain Stable
8th Apr 2009, 19:21
I can see parallels here (sorry if it's been pointed out before) between this case and the woman who objected to being told not to push in the queue at the supermarket, got her boyfriend in, he hit the wrong bloke, weho fell to the floor, fractured his skull and died.

They were both jailed.

I sincerely hope that this "police" thug gets the same treatment. He is a disgrace to his uniform.

Bus429
8th Apr 2009, 19:25
Like many who consider themselves generally law-abiding, I am a little disturbed by the zeal with which the MET deals with protesters. Last year's actions during the parading of the Olympic flame are a case in point. Without wishing to be too contentious and not knowing all the facts, it would be nice if this zeal were channelled into targeting murders and other serious crimes.

Torque Tonight
8th Apr 2009, 20:56
It seems to me that in recent years the police and government have made enemies of a large proportion of the population, and this incident is symptomatic of a worrying trend. When largely law abiding and constructive members of society begin to feel alienated by these institutions and when professional, respectable people begin to distrust them, the seeds of devastating dischord are sown.

The police and government must remember that they are the servants of the population, and not the masters. When the police fatally wield the whip hand over an innocent citizen going about his lawful business, then centuries of British justice are undermined and our country starts to resembles an Orwellian police state of the worst sort.

This comes from a righty with no sympathy for anarchist rioters whatsoever.

G-CPTN
8th Apr 2009, 21:01
The assaulting officer has surrendered.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | G20 probe officer comes forward (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7990423.stm)

The IPCC have ordered a second post mortem.
One caller to the Beeb said she saw Mr T's head hit the ground when he fell.
Another said Mr T was the object of an earlier Police assault.

wings folded
8th Apr 2009, 21:02
The poor chap was not, it would seem, an anarchist rioter.

He sold the rather dull parochial London evening newspaper outside the Monument tube station, and was apparently trying to get home through all this mess.

stagger
8th Apr 2009, 21:31
The standard police response in a situation like this might be lie/cover-up/smear the victim. However, given the existence of this video recording (and the fact that more photos/videos may come to light) I suspect that the PC involved is going to get hung out to dry as a "bad apple" - while others who carried out similar assaults on that day who go unpunished.

frostbite
8th Apr 2009, 22:47
Wasn't there some recent legislation against filming the police in action?

Wonder why?

Orion Man
8th Apr 2009, 23:23
BabyBear

it is an extremely unlikely and unfortunate outcome of pushing someone

Maybe, but maybe police take too much for granted in crowd control and an artistic licence. He coshed the guy behind his right knee, then pushed him over.

His backed was turned and he wasn't involved. Time the Police were accountable. They got off Menezes but public figures too are going to be held to scrutiny in these times.

Regards

Orion Man

skiingman
9th Apr 2009, 02:43
frostbite: Over here we have some cases where our federal Justice Department has forced local/regional police agencies to use dashboard cameras in order to combat known discrimination and corruption from those agencies.

In one memorable case, a TV reporter annoying a local pol was subjected to a felony stop without cause (guns in the face, forceful arrest) by a couple dozen officers. Subsequently let go on the scene with no charges filed. She was injured in the process and sued. Turns out of the ~12 cruisers on the scene with federally mandated dashboard cameras, all were "broken". That was ~10 years ago. These days the dash cams are more common even where not required by federal mandate, and I look at agencies that don't use the same way I look at restaurants that don't accept credit cards: likely to be up to no good.

I record all of my interactions with the police surreptitiously, with varying degrees of legal risk. One never wants to let the police know you are recording them even if it is legal...all downside for you if they aren't honest, no upside if they are honest. Video was recently released of a narcotics team disabling ~12 security cameras in a store that they were raiding: subsequently the owner claims they stole cash and destroyed merchandise. Those particular thugs with badges didn't realize the video was being recorded off site...

I respect the law and law enforcement, but I respect unknown to me law enforcement officers on the street in the same way I respect the bears I come across in the woods. To be given wide berth, not poked, and not expected to respond to reason.

Captain Stable
9th Apr 2009, 09:45
Various pictures taken around the incident clearly show the officer involved had not only covered his face with a balaclava - was it really that cold? - but had also removed his epaulettes on which his police number would have been visible.

He clearly had done this BEFORE the assault on Tomlinson.

It appears to me that this was, then a premeditated attack. That policeman was out for trouble, for which he did not want to be identified.

I suspect he is not going to have a nice time in prison, which is where he deserves to be.

Furthermore, any of the other officers in the vicinity who witnessed the attack and did not promptly report it should also be put on trial for acting as an accessory in not coming forward and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

El Grifo
9th Apr 2009, 09:55
I think tr0tsky nailed it on page one.

It appears that there was a gang of violence-prone, masked instigators at the demonstration. And they killed a man that day.

radeng
9th Apr 2009, 10:54
As it is now illegal to film or photograph the police, would it be possible for the defence in any criminal action to move that the evidence was invalid sincew it had been illegally obtained?

CATIII-NDB
9th Apr 2009, 11:25
As its now illegal to film the Police -surely a public interest defence exsists for the repeal of the said act(s) - I have only seen the video described and I'm not legally or medically qualified to comment, but as others have said -A situation exsists whre a proportion of the population has come to "distrust" elements of the police. The Met in particular. Remember the initial public statement issued said "police sustainded a barrage of projectiles thrown as they helped the victim" from memory. Don't forget too, the supline reporting of the incident by the BBC. Every public statement issued by the met should be accompanied by the prefex Uncorroborated unless the actuality is without doubt.

Their (the police) conduct is governed by their political masters - Jacky Smith (42 days remember) should go.

CAT III

mustpost
9th Apr 2009, 11:31
A quote from Winston Churchill, quoted in turn by Henry Porter in the Grauniad in Feb...


If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.


Oh, there's someone at the d....

Sir Lee B´stard
9th Apr 2009, 13:25
Another point we should bear in mind is the police are drawn from society, not some different species; ergo they reflect society and in the end we get the police we deserve. God help us.

One final point RS i would not post accusations of murder, here or anywhere else, it may well constitute a criminal libel.

Tyres O'Flaherty
9th Apr 2009, 13:48
Captain Stable

being outfitted that way is normal on crowd control in these sorts of situtions.

He would still have a letter code i.d. on his helmet

Wedge
9th Apr 2009, 13:55
Haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet but there's quite a lot of 'man in the pub' law here.

One final point RS i would not post accusations of murder, here or anywhere else, it may well constitute a criminal libel.

It doesn't, nor does the allegation of murder. There is such a thing as criminal libel on the statute books but it has no one has been charged with it in decades. Furthermore RS's character was not defamed as he earlier suggested on this thread. ;o)

There is potentially a case for a murder charge here. Although there would never be a conviction on the evidnce as it appears so far, because that would require prosecutors to prove the officer had the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which would (imho) be impossible to prove.

However, were the boot on the other foot and a policeman had died after being struck by a member of the public exercising their lawful right to protest, you can rest assured that that person would currently be under investigation by the police for murder.

It is not the extent of the assault itself, but the outcome which determines the charge, if a chain of causation can be shown between the event of the assault and the subsequent harm , in this case, death.

There is a legal principle called the 'egg shell skull rule', which states that the defendant is responsible for the full extent of the harm caused if that harm follows naturally from the assault. ie - Suppose Tomlinson had a dodgy ticker, and it could be shown that he had a heart attack and died as a direct result of the assault, and that the officer concerned committed an act which was either dangerous or grossly negligent (there's a bit more to it but that's the gist), then the officer can be guilty of manslaughter.

Ever since I first saw the video on Tuesday, it was my opinion that if the officer could be identified he would face a homicide charge of some sort and that remains my opinion.

On the facts as they appear now, he should.

Captain Stable
9th Apr 2009, 13:59
TyresCaptain Stable

being outfitted that way is normal on crowd control in these sorts of situtions.

He would still have a letter code i.d. on his helmetNo, it is not. At all times when on duty he should have been wearing his epaulettes. Check out the pictures - all other officers in that picture were identifiable, and had their police numbers on their uniforms. This one officer did not.The officer, who has not been named, is expected to be questioned today under criminal caution by the Independent Police Complaints Commission .
He identified himself to his manager and the IPCC yesterday as fresh pictures suggested he had removed his shoulder number and covered his face with a balaclava before hitting Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, with a baton and pushing him to the ground on Cornhill, in the City of London, last Wednesday. From G20 death: Officer who assaulted Ian Tomlinson 'should be arrested and suspended' | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-ian-tomlinson-police)

Another video here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-video)

Storminnorm
9th Apr 2009, 14:18
I'm glad to see that Brian Paddick thinks that the copper involved
should be arrested and charged.
He may be gay and a bit "anti-establishment", but he's right on
this issue.
The reputation of quite a large section of the Police force does rest
on actions taken in respect of the "Control" of large public gatherings,
Be they pro or anti Government.
This particular incident does absolutely nothing for the public to be
encouraged that the force is a "Public" service.
People DO have the right to demonstrate against whatever they wish.
But EVEN the Police do not have the right to assault people in this way.

Reminded me a little of the actions of "Maggies Private Army" during
the Miners strike. Pure thuggery.

parabellum
9th Apr 2009, 14:46
A bit disturbing to see most people here so ready to convict on the basis of the video, as shown, without bothering to find out if the video had been edited or not.

tr0tsky
9th Apr 2009, 14:46
being outfitted that way is normal on crowd control in these sorts of situtions.

from the images that I've seen on the day coupled with my own personal experience of police in 'public order' situations I know this not to be the case.

There were, according to photos of the event, many police both without face-masks and wearing their shoulder numbers.

A minority of officers decided to remove the numbers and cover their faces.

What I'd like to point out that this was not an isolated case.

I've witnessed police brutality on demonstrations. I've been at the receiving end of them, and before anybody asks I am neither an anarchist, a jobless layabout (I write this from my desk at work) nor do I have questionable personal hygiene. I smell, at the moment, of Davidoff Cool Water.

From the many reports that are on the mainstream press it was evident that the shove that was given to Mr Tomlinson was the tip of the iceberg. There are reports in today's Independent of a young (female, though that means nothing) student that was assaulted whilst she sat on the floor at the Climate Camp, that was an entirely peaceful gathering.

This also comes around the time of the anniversary of the death of Blair Peach, a school teacher that was beaten to death by Police Officers following an anti-racism/National Front march in 1979.

What I'm saying is that I don't think that this one officer that this one particular shove that killed Tomlinson was the worst of the assaults and violence that the Police dished out that day. Also, this wasn't the first time in the history of the world that that British police have acted as a force unto themselves.

Stormin,

I was just about to say something along the lines of "blimey, I think I agree with everything you've written so far! Isn't that crazy!" but then I noticed this little gem:

He may be gay...but he's right on
this issue.

Since when did somebody's sexuality preclude being able to hold a political judgement?

Isn't that as misguided as saying "he may be black..." or "she may be a woman..." or "they might be from Yorkshire..."

CATIII-NDB
9th Apr 2009, 14:48
Thanks Mustpost and Sir B. Your warning rings all too True - Are we witnessing the establishment of a "Force" that far from being an instrument to prevent and investigate crime and instead becomes an adjunct of those in power to suppress opposition to the said political establishment - We need to be more proactive in our demands to make the Police more accountable. How ? - I don't know but yes again the spectre of Orgreve arises from common memory - Was that a changing point in our attitudes to the Police and for that matter the attitude of the Police twowards the population that they were supposed to Police.

Remember the premptive Stop and Search measures - The right of free movement is one of the first things an oppressive regime stops and the right of peaceful protest comes next.

As said by Sir B "God help us." - And a big warning - We do not know how the Video has been edited etc but what has been shown, maybe very selectively is a disturbing snapshot of a series of events.

A second Inquest - Now there's a reason to be worried - Was there "pressure" to perform a less than thourough one the first time.

CAT III

Storminnorm
9th Apr 2009, 14:56
There MAY be some who "might" think otherwise Trotsky.
There IS, unfortunately, an element in all strands of our
particular society, that are, indeed, homophobic.
I am not "One of them" in either sense.
But there are lots about.
Personally, I think the way B Paddick was treated was scandalous.
But that's just MY view. NO offence intended at all. Sorry I even
mentioned it. Grovel, Grovel.

Nice to know that we DO agree on some things.

He's NOT from Yorkshire BTW!

Captain Stable
9th Apr 2009, 15:12
parabellumA bit disturbing to see most people here so ready to convict on the basis of the video, as shown, without bothering to find out if the video had been edited or not.The video has, quite clearly, not been edited. Compare the two angles.

There appears to have been a guilty mind somewhere within the police when they started issuing lies and falsehoods right from the start of this business.

They omitted to mention that Mr. Tomlinson had been involved in this fracas only a few minutes before he died. They alleged that they had been pelted by missiles when they were simply trying to attend to a victim of crowd violence when, in fact, there was one bottle thrown before one of the demonstrators who happened to have a megaphone told the crowd to keep away and told them medics were attending to a man in danger. They later tried to allege that Tomlinson had been the victim of mindless demonstrator violence.

We have seen before the pattern of incident - police statement - right-wing press pick up the police statement verbatim - statement shown to be false - initial lies hard to correct.

We have to ask, time and again, "If the police have nothing to hide, why do they persist in clinging to the initial lie when it has been proved to be false?"

Even policemen and former policemen have said that the relationship between various police forces (in particular the Met) and the IPCC is far too cosy and close. One suspects that the Met think it will all be glossed over again, as it very nearly was in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes.

skiingman
9th Apr 2009, 15:16
without bothering to find out if the video had been edited or not

Concern-troll is concerned. Provide evidence of your claim. Or just keep trollin'

Roger Sofarover
9th Apr 2009, 15:36
Sir Lee

One final point RS i would not post accusations of murder, here or anywhere else, it may well constitute a criminal libel.

Oh give me a break, are you serious? I want to converse with men and I find boys I tell you, boys!:bored:

Wedge
I think you know BB was being toyed with;)

Parabellum
A bit disturbing to see most people here so ready to convict on the basis of the video, as shown, without bothering to find out if the video had been edited or not.:zzz::zzz:

Well as many senior figures today have been calling for the copper to be arrested and charged the opinion of 'most of us people' here on JB is way down the food chain. I assume before bothering to ask if we have confirmed the vid is edited, you have checked the separate, different videos shown by the Guardian and Channel 4? ....no I thought not, or you would not have made the comment above would you. The copper is guilty. Guilty of what will be up to the court.

If I was Mr Tomlinson's son I would be getting me the best barrister in the Temple right now.

radeng
9th Apr 2009, 16:19
A disturbing incident - yes. Even the police themselves agree on that. Will the IPCC really come up with anything? All we can do is wait and see - and if they do recommend a prosecution, will the CPS follow through on that?

We live in interesting times.

Storminnorm
9th Apr 2009, 16:20
The "Filth" will probably say it was suicide.

Captain Stable
9th Apr 2009, 16:23
The Metropolitan Police (Met) has now acknowledged Mr Tomlinson came "into contact with police" before he died."Yeah, sarge, he came into contact with my baton - can we charge him with damaging police property?"

G-CPTN
9th Apr 2009, 17:07
The second post-mortem examination of Mr Tomlinson was due to be carried out today.
I'm slightly puzzled, as I discovered (from my Home Office Pathologist neighbour) that a forensic post-mortem is always 'complete' (and doesn't stop when they have discovered the obvious cause of death) though Mr Tomlinson might have only been subjected to a clinical post-mortem.
However, it might be possible that the information recorded might be truncated?

Is there anybody who can explain (from a position of knowledge)?

tr0tsky
9th Apr 2009, 17:29
This is the most sensible thing I've seen written about the incident so far.

From The Independent:

Deborah Orr: The catalogue of incidents that tell the Met is out of control - Deborah Orr, Commentators - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-the-catalogue-of-incidents-that-tell-the-met-is-out-of-control-1666141.html)

I'd strongly suggest that people read it.

G-CPTN
9th Apr 2009, 17:43
A Metropolitan Police Terrorist Special Group Officer has been suspended from duty 'with immediate effect' . . .

El Grifo
9th Apr 2009, 17:47
Here is the real Mr Hicks version of a similar tale, US style.


Sit back and soak up the irony :ok:


YouTube - Bill Hicks - Officer Nigger Hater - Arizona Bay NOT RASCIST (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV4MuAAAhP4)

sitigeltfel
9th Apr 2009, 18:00
This medic was obviously short of patients to treat that day

police medic on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/amjamjazz/3406353191/)

Roger Sofarover
9th Apr 2009, 18:18
sitigeltfel

That photo is a shocker. I wonder how Baby Bear, Parabellum and ozzienpg would like to justify that one. I guess it was against his human rights for him to be left out of all the fun eh.

El Grifo
9th Apr 2009, 18:31
Being a Police Medic, he will probably claim that it was a "stitch-up" :}


Hat, Coat, etc

Mr Chips
9th Apr 2009, 18:36
Not condoning him of he is hitting an innocent person, but surely he is doing his job as a Police Officer, the fact he is a medic/first aider is secondary to that? Now, if it was an ambulance service paramedic with a baton, that would be different....

Low Flier
9th Apr 2009, 19:10
That "officer" was just drumming up some business.

That was just a drumstick in his right hand.

Nothing to see here. Now move along.

Anyway, didntcha know that it has recently been made illegal to photograph the police? Wonder why.

mustpost
9th Apr 2009, 19:27
If you are in the UK, try watching the UK Police Commission double talk in an hour's time - C4 news + 1 (it's a repeat at 2000 -BST - actual bcast time about 2015)
Vaaairry interesting - listening carefully it vindicates the theories of a lot of the posters on this thread:suspect:

Roger Sofarover
9th Apr 2009, 20:20
Mustpost

I found a link to Ch4
Channel 4 - News - IPCC: there is no CCTV footage (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/ipcc+there+is+no+cctv+footage/3078297)

Two news articles, one is 9 mins long titled, 'no cctv cameras' I think from your description this may be it. The guy does not instill confidence and even admits that the CoL Police are still doing some 'stuff' for the IPCC investigation???

Is this the article? Thanks for the heads up.

mustpost
9th Apr 2009, 20:23
Roger
That's the very one

None of the above
9th Apr 2009, 20:46
Another point we should bear in mind is the police are drawn from society, not some different species; ergo they reflect society.....

So one in three has a criminal record?

Roger Sofarover
9th Apr 2009, 20:52
Mustpost

Thanks. What I do find amazing is that the Chairman of the IPCC says

"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."
No Cameras around Royal Exchange, The Bank of England, Mansion House etc etc? I am sure there will be a CH4 journo stalking out the area now looking for them. There are over 10 000 cameras in the City centre.

This is also interesting


Ahead of G20 summit, council told to switch off illegal 15m CCTV network | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/30/cctv-london-government-transport-g20)

Now you would have thought that ahead of the summit the security people would have wanted every possible camera there. Pre-emptive back covering?

El Grifo
9th Apr 2009, 20:56
Now you would have thought that ahead of the summit the security people would have wanted every possible camera there.


Or not :ooh:

mustpost
9th Apr 2009, 21:02
Roger, well spotted, never saw that one in Jockistan:D It just gets better.

Mr Chips
9th Apr 2009, 21:06
Roger Sofarover please tell me that you are kidding? YOu seem to be seeing a massive conspiracy in all of this, just so that one TSG thug could shove a man in the back?

Lets understand what actually happened. ONE police officer apparently overstepped the mark, has been suspended and the whole incident is being investigated by the IPCC. Quite apart from the fact that so many people on here seem to have already judged the outcome, it should/could be remembered that it was one officer out of thousands on duty

Roger Sofarover
9th Apr 2009, 21:28
Mr Chips

No I am not kidding thank you. I have not mentioned any conspiracy. I merely stated that ahead of one of the biggest security ops in years that it was strange that the DoT enforced the council to switch of an entire net of CCTV in the area of the protests because they did not broadcast their wireless signal at 720 x 576 pixels, but rather 704 x 576 pixels. Now that is really idiotic don't you think, considering those cameras would have provided vital traffic surrveilance for the police. Nothing to do with Mr Tomlinson so don't get your knickers in a twist.

Quite apart from the fact that so many people on here seem to have already judged the outcome

Well on the strength of the video, both serving and retired chief constables called for the officers arrest and suspension.

it should/could be remembered that it was one officer out of thousands on duty

Plus thoses that watched him and did nothing. It's tough really for the good Police Officers. A man died.

Sir Lee B´stard
9th Apr 2009, 21:28
For Wedge, by odd coincidence, from The Independent 21 March (By Richard Ingrams)
''One of my proudest boasts is that I have stood in the dock of No 1 Court at the Old Bailey where many of the most infamous traitors and murderers have stood, but also quite a few non-murderers such as Oscar Wilde. The charge against me was one of criminal libel.
Like most others at that time (1976) I was unaware that a law of criminal libel was still in existence. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was notoriously used by the state to lock up subversive journalists or radical agitators such as Wilkes or Cobbett without giving them a chance to justify in court what they had written.
The law was later modified to give a defendant that right but it was never repealed. On investigation I discovered that it was quite frequently used to prosecute people who wrote defamatory letters to the police, though such cases seldom received any publicity.
My appearance at the Old Bailey turned out to be purely a formality as Sir James Goldsmith, who had instigated the prosecution and to everyone's surprise been given the go-ahead by a High Court judge, decided that he no longer wished to proceed. The case had become a grave embarrassment to him. But that made a nonsense of the whole case. If the libel was a crime then it was up to the state to decide whether or not to prosecute.
On Monday, thanks to Mr Evan Harris MP, the House of Commons will have the opportunity to vote for his amendment which could finally abolish this antiquated and disgraceful law. It would be nice to think that for once MPs might rise to the occasion.''
I would have said it was no more than 15 years ago:( Time flies when you're having fun. I still maintain that RS has over stepped the mark and would argue that his remarks are potentially defamatory if the outcome is that there is no causal link between the blow and death. I further see no difference (as I remember it) in Ingram's laying himself open to such proceedings and RS's remarks, which in fact make a far more serious allegation.

El Grifo
9th Apr 2009, 21:30
However, with this assault in mind.

This type of activity is largely emerging as modus operandi for same organisation.

Whether it is planned, or whether it is something that is moving out of control, it is best to be kept from the prying eyes of the public.

We are only the "public" after all :suspect:


Good to keep a beady on the activities of the public.

Bad to keep a beady on the activities of the police

G-CPTN
9th Apr 2009, 21:30
During such events, don't the Police usually deploy video photographers so that they can nail violent offenders?


Football crowds are usually filmed by both camera vans and handheld video cameras.

The mantra that is being trotted out now is frightenly reminiscent of the Stockwell aftermath. Do they think we are stupid?

Mr Chips
9th Apr 2009, 21:37
Roger Sofaover

"Pre-emptive back covering?"

Obviously my misinterpretation of what you typed

Its is very sad that a man died. Interstingly (to me) a close friend's father will be investigating.

Hopefully this is nothing like Stockwell and the stories that came out after that. I had a passing acquaintence with one of the main witnesses who apparently was very "freaked out" that their memory of the incident was so different to the official version of events. They were of course correct, the story was proved to be wrong - but apparently a major mindf**k for them

mustpost
9th Apr 2009, 21:41
G-CPTN
Yup
http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/Feb2009/crowd-aim_1296821i.jpg

Roger Sofarover
9th Apr 2009, 21:51
Sir Lee

You have way too much time on your hands. Which remarks will I find myself in front of the old beak for? Because now you are falling foul of your own argument. I hope you are right, because now you may be defaming me:eek:

If there is no causal link between the blows and the collapse 4 mins later I will eat my shorts. But anyway that's an aside, which remarks were you talking about? Whatever they are I am not sure that they will sway a jury.

G-CPTN
9th Apr 2009, 21:57
Hasn't there been a recent law introduced which prohibits the photographing of Police (both uniformed and plain clothes) under the prevention of terrorism act?

Roger Sofarover
9th Apr 2009, 22:15
G-CPTN

Yes it appears there has, which all seems a bit odd really doesn't it. How do you police that when at a protest you may have 20 000 people with mobile phones plus media etc? If I were a terrorist I would be much madder if they brought out a law that stopped things like this

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/7631/response/19095/attach/html/3/CCTV.pdf.html

which lists all the locations for CCTV in the CoL area. All obtained under the freedom of information act and whatever you ask they have to just cough up the info. All that sort of info is quite handy really if you were plotting a bank job or something else.

Go to the route site in the link when you have done. These guys spend all day firing off questions to gov departments all over the country, and they have to be answered. Think of the people they are keeping in jobs.

BarbiesBoyfriend
9th Apr 2009, 23:13
Once upon-a-time, I thought of the cops as 'us'.

ie. they were part of the common good and protected us from 'them'- the criminals.



Sadly, nowadays I think of the cops as 'them'.

A force with its own agenda-and if that means pain for 'us', then too bad.





Well, they can count on my support.





NOT

Bally Heck
10th Apr 2009, 00:39
BarbiesBoyfriend,

I was halfway through a complicated reply to your post. But you have said it all. The British police have lost all of my respect, much like the British politicians.

I go to work, I don't beat anybody up, I stay in hotels rather than second or third homes. I used to think that if I saw a policeman in trouble (Z Car days I'm afraid) I would help him out. I really wouldn't now.

Sorry to the honest competent cops out there. How do I know which one you are?

Few and far between?

parabellum
10th Apr 2009, 01:51
Capt Stable - Your points are taken, we don't get the same in depth coverage down here from TV and the press which is why I have offered no opinion just expressed concern that the original video might be considered as evidence by some on here. I know nothing of the rules of evidence but suggest that a video taken on a mobile 'phone, carried to the USA and returned to a UK newspaper, (not the DPP), via electronic means will be challenged by the defence and because it has been exposed to the possibility of tampering I would expect it to be considered inadmissible. I can't comment on any other evidence as I haven't seen it yet.

skiingman - I made no claim, read the post again, as pointed out above I expressed reasonable concern, for your education that is not trolling.
I appreciate you are very young and still have a lot of growing up to do.

tr0tsky
10th Apr 2009, 09:45
Roger Sofarover please tell me that you are kidding? YOu seem to be seeing a massive conspiracy in all of this, just so that one TSG thug could shove a man in the back?

Mr Chips, how many statements do you need to see before you believe that this wasn't either an isolated incident that day nor was it the worst case of police assult?

On a side note: a vinyl I purchased online has just arrived today.

The title of the song? Mr Chips!

YouTube - RUSKO - MR CHIPS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1zA910Hx-E)

Although it may not be to your tastes :ok:

tr0tsky
10th Apr 2009, 09:54
Barbies and Bally,

many people in the Black and Asian community have felt this way for a good few years now.

The bad apples let the whole barrel down. Problem is...a dodgy copper's mistakes often are pretty bloody big mistakes.

Then they're lied about- "honest guv, we didn't hit him once", "honest guv, when we went to help him we were pelted by bottles and planks of wood", "honest guv, the anarchists were stopping the ambulance reaching him".

LIES that were fed to the media following it. Shame on the Daily Mail and Telegraph for printing them.

I'm starting to see some sense in what these protesting folk have been complaining about in the past. This came out of the last climate camp that was held, at a powerstation in Kent:

(from the BBC)



Public concern about the policing of the Kingsnorth Climate Camp must be addressed, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has said.
Complaints about the actions of the Kent force at the camp near Hoo last August were made but the IPCC said the areas were outside its jurisdiction.

The complaints will now be dealt with by Kent Police and the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA).

IPCC Commissioner Mike Franklin said there was significant public concern.
He said the majority of issues seemed to be about the general policing of the event.

'Sleep deprivation'
He added: "This was a large scale policing operation which has generated some criticism.

"One of the things the IPCC will be doing is looking at the effectiveness of the complaints system and whether there are lessons to be learned that can be shared with other forces who will deal with demonstrations in the future."


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45526000/jpg/_45526818_protestbook.jpg Colouring books were among the items police removed in searches

In a statement on Friday, he said the IPCC had completed an assessment of three referrals from Kent Police about the camp.

It had examined a 23-page document supplied to the Liberal Democrat Party which was passed to Kent Police.
The complaints included some issues about misconduct, but most were about operational tactics including claims that officers inflicted sleep deprivation through the use of loud music.
Because the issues were outside the IPCC's jurisdiction, Kent Police will now ask the NPIA to review the policing approach and tactics used during the protest.

Hi-de-Hi theme
A misconduct complaint will be considered by the force's Professional Standards Department (PSD), and two further complaints from individuals will also be dealt with directly by the force.

If complainants are not satisfied with the PSD investigations, they can appeal to the IPCC, Mr Franklin said.

The Liberal Democrats' report alleged that activists were woken up by The Clash's I Fought The Law and the Hi-de-Hi theme

It goes on to claim the policing was "disproportionate and outrageous".
Laywer Francis Wright, co-author of the report, said the camp started with searches carried out on a massive scale, with everyone treated as criminals.

The Lib Dems, who presented the study to Parliament, renewed their calls for an inquiry into the policing.

About 1,000 demonstrators attended the camp to protest against plans for a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth.

Hmmmm.

AussieAndy
10th Apr 2009, 10:24
Can we see the previous 30 seconds of the video please?

The narrator says that he was walking through the area however, the direction that he was walking from was a bike stand so makes me question that he was actually walking through the area. At the very beginning you can see some interaction between him and a PC from the very right of the screen. He certainly was not 'walking away from them', he appears to be non-compliant and despite there being a police dog barking at him just a few feet away, instead of walking away he casually walks in a diagonal line across the path of the Police.

In all of the commotion, you must ask why one would walk so slowly, hands in pockets, and clearly not adhering to the instructions being made that clearly the rest of the crowd had done as they were 10 feet further back.

A very difficult and sad situation, however we all know that it would not have made the news if the chap hadn't suffered the heart attack and died. The conscience of the copper would no doubt be very heavy at the moment but calling it an assualt I feel is very wrong.

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 10:29
but calling it an assualt I feel is very wrong. sic

Then what would you care to call it then AA.

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 10:39
AussieAndy

Can we see the previous 30 seconds of the video please? If they exist they are irrelevant.

The narrator says that he was walking through the area however, the direction that he was walking from was a bike stand and your point is? and at the very beginning you can see some interaction between him and a PC from the very right of the screen. He certainly was not 'walking away from them', Yes he was ! he appears to be non-compliant how can he appear to be non-compliant? and despite there being a police dog barking at him just a few feet away What was the police dog barking at him? Grr comon move on Grr hurry up, instead of walking away he does walk away, he has his back to them he casually walks in a diagonal line across the path of the Police away from them.

In all of the commotion, you must ask why one would walk so slowly, hands in pockets He had finished work and wanted to go home, he was not a protester and was not allowed to go home, where was he supposed to hurry to?, and clearly not adhering to the instructions being made that clearly the rest of the crowd had done as they were 10 feet further back. What instructions?

A very difficult and sad situation, however we all know that it would not have made the news if the chap hadn't suffered the heart attack and died the big issue is Andy, that he did have a heart attack. The conscience of the copper would no doubt be very heavy at the moment I would like to hope so, but I feel it maybe because of the inevitable loss of his job! but calling it an assualt I feel is very wrong Well I feel that you are very wrong, it was clearly an assault, that much is beyond any doubt at all.Just wondering if you have read this thread, listened to or read the news and views of senior police officers and thought before putting fingers to keyboard?

parabellum
10th Apr 2009, 12:28
Sorry Roger but I have read the thread and the points AussieAndy raises are similar to the points I have raised. Far too much lynch mob mentality pervades, you have already bought the rope haven't you? You came to this thread with the noose in your hand when the minimum of evidence was available but prepared to accept as gospel the 'phone cam video taken to the USA and then sent to a UK broadsheet known for it's left wing tendencies. It may all turn out to be exactly as you believe but to suggest that any video or evidence prior to the bits you so cherish is irrelevant or any points raised by AussieAndy are, according to you, simply wrong, is pushing your credibility just a little too far.

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 12:52
Parabellum

The video footage is not only from a mobile phone, it is also from a channel4 TV crew. The points made by AussieAndy are totally irrelevant. At the time of the incident Mr T was not in anyway a threat to the police, the general public or public/private property. If Mr T had been verbally abusive to the police then he should have been arrested IAW procedures. Why are you unable to understand that the Policeman has committed an assault? There were Chief Constables both serving and retired that said upon seeing 'the video', 'the officer should be arrested and suspended', now it doesn't get much clearer than that does it?

I have no noose ready, he will get what comes to him, what drives me nuts are the tree huggers on here that, despite being smacked in the face with a wet kipper, continue to try and defend somebody like this policeman. There was no 'minimum of evidence' Parabellum, it is there for the world to see. I care not two hoots what you think of my credibility. If your points, as you say, are the same as AussyAndys then you need to take a close look at how you think. Not only do I think AussieAndy is wrong, I now think you are wrong. You say you were an Army pilot, now I start thinking about credibility.

Tell me Parabellum do the guys here commit a crime? Does it matter what happens 30 seconds before they walk in? Is he guilty of a crime? Does it matter what the shop keeper says to him? Or anyone else for that matter? Do you think they should be let off because they entertained us? Come on I am intrigued.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qs4quhTO4WU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qs4quhTO4WU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fm97k7mLF0M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fm97k7mLF0M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

frostbite
10th Apr 2009, 13:09
It used to be said 'If you want to know the time, ask a policeman'.

Not because they were all friendly and helpful chaps but because they had a reputation in those days for rolling drunks and stealing their watches.

Are we seeing the emergence of a modern day equivalent?

parabellum
10th Apr 2009, 13:22
Roger you have just blown it. What stupid things will you say next? So what if I was an Army Pilot, THAT is irrelevant. Me a tree hugger? I think not, nor have I tried to defend anybody, just ask that any accusations made are based on hard and proven evidence and also to ask if there might be any mitigating circumstances, you are totally blind to this possibility, you have made up your mind, there will be no trial.

I'll leave you to your uncontrolled and extraordinarily illogical outbursts.

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 13:32
Posted by Parabellum
Roger you have just blown it. What stupid things will you say next? So what if I was an Army Pilot, THAT is irrelevant. Me a tree hugger? I think not, nor have I tried to defend anybody, just ask that any accusations made are based on hard and proven evidence and also to ask if there might be any mitigating circumstances, you are totally blind to this possibility, you have made up your mind, there will be no trial.

I'll leave you to your uncontrolled and extraordinarily illogical outbursts.:}:} What have I blown?:}

I'll leave you to your uncontrolled and extraordinarily illogical outbursts.:}:}:{:}:}

you have made up your mind, there will be no trial.

Newsflash from the BBC.........dit dit dit dah dah dah dit 'An amazing breakthrough in the case of the policeman who assaulted Mr Tomlinson. He has been banged up for 15 years. The Home Secretary announced this evening 'There will be no trial, Roger Sofarover thinks he is guilty, he has made up his mind according to Mr Parabellum. This is clearly a no brainer, the government is helpless to intervene. Now please excuse me, my husband and I are half way through Polly does the Protesters'.
:ok:

you have brightened up anotherwise dull and dreary evening thank you.

So come on Parabellum, are the robbers in the videos guilty?

Bye the way I have to ask and honestly it is painful (they can do nothing for cracked ribs you know), but I will soldier away.

and also to ask if there might be any mitigating circumstancesplease name one possible mitigating circumstance that will justify the truncheon on the leg and the push to the floor, just one...please..... pretty please.

airship
10th Apr 2009, 14:58
May I suggest that part of any problem with policemen generally is that they might also reflect the 'greater society's attitudes' during their employment? And considering the overall life-span of your average policemen, any changes (which are inevitably directed from the top of the establishment) take an inordinate amount of time (comparatively) before they're put into effect. So, if the chief constable, having suffered from a costly divorce say, decided to put into effect any new employment practices, consisting of say, prioritising the employment of 'harder' PCs (eg. football hooligans, or even those who don't like eating curry on a Friday night after the pubs close), that is something the public have to live with for many years, until retirement of any repeated offenders eventually intervenes...?! :}

Captain Stable
10th Apr 2009, 15:13
Sorry, airship, I really don't follow that at all. :confused:

parabellum, nobody has a noose ready and waiting.

What almost everyone is saying (as I understand it) is that there is a prima facie case to answer. Many people are also querying why it took the IPCC so long to act, why so few police featured in the various videos have sufaced, and hoping that there WILL be a trial.

A lot of people here have been feeling that the police have been given too wide powers and that even those powers are being misused.

As far as the incident involving Ian Tomlinson is concerned, one policeman needs to go on trial on a charge of manslaughter, and several more on charges of I don't know what - accessory?

There also needs to be a wider investigation/inquest into how the police are run, both internally (i.e. senior management) and externally (i.e. political interference and policy-making).

There are some very serious charges to answer. Nobody has said that those charges are open-and-shut cases. But answered they must be.

Mr Chips
10th Apr 2009, 15:22
Tr0tsky, before you leap in on all those who appear to disagree with you, perhaps you should read comments in context. Roger Sofarover's post appeared to me to suggest that the CCTV cameras had been turned off as part of some conspiracy before the event, and I challenged him on this. I did not, in that post, deny it was an assault, and as for your suggestion that there were other assaults during the day - where did that come from? I foolishly thought we were discussing this one incident.

No doubt there were other unpleasant incidents that day - and I am certain you are privately calling for the prosecution of every single person who committed an offence that day, including of course the person that did in fact throw a bottle at the police officers tending to the dying man. Yes, it DID happen, and yet I haven't seen your condemnation of the person who did that, nor your call for their instant arrest. Funny that.

This man's route home from work seems a long and difficult one, as it seems that it also involved obstructing a police riot van one hour earlier necessitating his removal from the road by four officers. I believe (I may be wrong) that obstructing a police officer is an offence. Having had one "run in" with the police, most people may have kept out of their way. I am still not condoning the TSG officer's actions, but it does cast a new slant.

I also wonder how long a heart attack actually takes... I wonder if teh victim had already started to have the heart attack as they take on average 20 minutes before the heart actually stops (as advised to me by a 4th year medical student)

Just a thought

Captain Stable
10th Apr 2009, 15:25
Mr. Chips, there are several kinds of "heart attack".

For example it is quite possible that a blow on the leg, such as the policeman appeared to give Tomlinson in the videos, could produce a coronary thrombosis - a blood clot that lodges in the coronary artery.

Mr Chips
10th Apr 2009, 15:31
A fair point Captain Stable, and one that hadn't occurred to me - although I'm not sure that he was hit all that hard on the leg - my interpretation of the video was that the push was more forceful - a whack with an asp (baton) when properly delivered would cause you to go down like a sack of.... Perhaps he was alteady ill which contributed to his apparent "belligerence". Who knows, but certainly points to ponder for the investigating officers. Hopefully the medical findings from the second post mortem (ordered by the IPCC accompanied by a court order) will shed some light.

I read that the IPCC initially were managing the COL Police investigation into a sudden death when the new evidence came to light at which point they took over. Officer concerned (according to the papers!) was unaware that he was involved, I guess as the death didn't occur on his "patch" that is possibly believable...

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 15:33
including of course the person that did in fact throw a bottle at the police officers tending to the dying man. Yes, it DID happen, and yet I haven't seen your condemnation of the person who did that, nor your call for their instant arrest. Funny that.

This man's route home from work seems a long and difficult one, as it seems that it also involved obstructing a police riot van one hour earlier necessitating his removal from the road by four officers.


Interesting new information which may change the complexion of the case.
Can you give a source pls.

El G.

Mr Chips
10th Apr 2009, 15:38
Certainly El G - photographs in today's papers, taken by a city IT worker at 18:07 in Lombard Street - one hour 25 minutes before he died

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 16:01
Sorry I have no access to such media.

Can you provide a link of some sort.

Mr Chips
10th Apr 2009, 16:03
Sure El Grifo - page 27 of the newspaper lying on my living room floor! Sorry, unable to link, but perhaps one of the cleverer types here can.

Ken Wells
10th Apr 2009, 16:06
It also shows Mr Tomlinson refusing to get out of the way of a police van earlier and arguing with Police. Press seem to have jumped to conclusions to blame a "Shove".( as some pruners have) on an "innocent bystander"

Shame the Press haven't praised the police in recent prompt action in stopping potential JIHAD nutters (sorry innocent Pakistani students) from turning this weekend into carnage!!!

jammydonut
10th Apr 2009, 16:10
You will be adding plaudits next to Top Cop who acted like a moron

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 16:19
Shame the Press haven't praised the police in recent prompt action in stopping potential JIHAD nutters (sorry innocent Pakistani students) from turning this weekend into carnage!!!

Well you know how it is.

The old "Cry Wolf" syndrome.

Trust in the Old Bill is at and all time low.

Nobody knows what to believe these days.


After all that Menezes mis-information, dis-information and downright lies, how can you blame people.


No one to blame but themselves really.

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 16:25
El Grifo

Sure El Grifo - page 27 of the newspaper lying on my living room floor! Sorry, unable to link, but perhaps one of the cleverer types here can.

Use the force El Grifo and try and determine the name of the news paper, yes I know it would have been easier for Chips to tell you but whatever. Page 27 should put the article in the TV and Gardening section.

Ken Wells

your posts are normally readable, however

It also shows Mr Tomlinson refusing to get out of the way of a police van earlier and arguing with Police. Press seem to have jumped to conclusions to blame a "Shove".( as some pruners have) on an "innocent bystander"

The photo shows him in front of a police van looking towards a police officer who is calling something from the said van. The photos do not show him refusing to get out of the way. Are you serious with that last sentence? It was a little more than a 'shove' Ken and it was preceded by a blow from a baton. Whatever he has been up to before the incident you seem to be forgetting the police ROE. He was walking away, and all the police had to do if he was pissing them off was arrest him.

People here seem to think that the blow and the fall could not have caused the heart attack. Funny really then to compare that when the policeman involved realised it was himself after seeing the video, he collapsed on his living room floor and was discovered unconscious by his missus. He was then taken to hospital suffering a panic attack and has been quoted as still to unwell to answer questions. Amazing you may say, surely seeing a video would not make you collapse and lie unconscious requiring hospitalization?? Seems just a small step for a whack with a big stick and a crack on your head to bring on a heart attack doesn't it.

Ken Wells
10th Apr 2009, 16:33
I do agree that my first impression on seeing the video was one of disgust. I remember calling the Policeman a coward for pushing him over.

But as more information is coming to light my view has become more cautious to the events leading up to the shove.

For example a second post mortem has been ordered to identify the cause of the heart attack.

I also do think it was equally disgusting to see G20 protesters throw objects at the police as they attended to Mr Tomlinson on the ground after his heart attack.

The biggest tragedy is obviously someone died and we need to find out why

wings folded
10th Apr 2009, 16:34
Perhaps other ppruners can help me here.

I understand that a policeman has come forward (and been suspended but not yet interviewed by the IPCP - one wonders why)

From what I have read, I cannot tell if he is part of the Met or the City of London police.

Does anybody know?

My curiosity stems from an unpleasant incident one rainy day when I was heading towards Holborn, along Newgate Street, in the morning at about the time they bring the alleged vilains to the Old Bailey for their hearing.

There were no G20 riots taking place.

As I neared the crossroads of Newgate Street and Old Bailey, with my head down (it was raining, remember, and I wear glasses - those who also wear glasses will understand), a fine member of the City of London police decided to retard my progress with a more than firm jab of his machine gun in my chest (it may not have been a machine gun - I am pleased to admit to being no expert - but it did look pretty evil)

If he had said "We want to keep the area clear, please wait a few moments" I would have been happy to comply.

As it was, I felt that I had been unjustifiably assaulted, and I felt the reality of the pain of the contact of his gun on my chest.

The worst of the matter is that I was afraid even to protest, because I am sure he would cheerfully have dealt out other "corrective" measures had I done so.

All I was doing was walking to an office for an appointment.

Very minor incident compared with the late Mr Tomlinson's experience, I know, but symptomatic?

Mr Chips
10th Apr 2009, 16:38
Oh dear, Mr Chips must stop posting ongue in cheek.

El Grifo, I saw the report on pages 26 and 27 of today's Daily Mail (which has 96 pages and no gardening section today)

The officer collapsed in his living room from a panic attack/shock/sudden drop in blood pressure (I'm not medically qualified, my first aid certificate expires next year). That is a long long way from a heart attack being caused by a shove to the ground. He also got up and walked away from the incident.

The photo in the newspaper does not show the victim doing anything much at all, as it is a photograph. Eye witness accounts on the other hand claim that he was obstructing the police van, that he was shouted at to get out of the way and that he was physically moved by 4 officers. Now, this could all be lies and a a conspiracy, or it could throw massive doubt on the claim that he was "On his way home from work" when he was struck on the leg by a baton. Will you comment on this part of the slowly unwinding story?

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 16:48
Woof Mr Chips !!

After reading what the Mail is saying, I am shocked :hmm:

MARTIN SAMUEL: The drip, drip denigration of Ian Tomlinson, an ordinary man | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1168850/MARTIN-SAMUEL-The-drip-drip-denigration-Ian-Tomlinson-ordinary-man.html)

Aren't you ?

Ken Wells
10th Apr 2009, 16:55
I think Martin Samuel is A Millwall fan though!

Mr Chips
10th Apr 2009, 17:00
El Grifo - I am only shocked by what I consider to be a badly written column (the reference to obstructing bankers is a bit odd considering the day in question!) by the Chief Sports Writer. Yep, Martinm Samuel is a Sports Correspondent, and in my purely personal opinion, not a very good one!

If you read back through this thread you will see that according to some posters the victim in all this was a man walking home from work across a Police line. The "drip drip" information has shown this version to be untrue, just like the video showed the original version of the whole incident to be untrue.

Unfortunately the general feel early on was that the officer was totally one hundred percent guilty of murder and probably the kidnapping of Shergar.

I have no doubt that the officer concerned was behaving in an over aggresive way, but we have yet to hear his version of events. I have been told by a serving police officer that most of the TSG are mindless thugs.

We have - as I recall - a basic assumption in law in the UK. It involves the word "proven". We have yet to see proof that a crime was committed that lead to this man's death, although I am certain that the IPCC will find this officer is answerable for his actions that day.

I'm going to wait for that report.

wings folded
10th Apr 2009, 17:09
I am getting more and more worried by this thread.

Tradition has it that policing is by consent.

The corollary is that we get the police we deserve.

I have no knowledge other than that which is reported in the press of the behaviour / actions / attitudes / gestures / habits of Mr Tomlinson prior to this incident.

If he had in some way contravened the law earlier that evening, the usual process is caution, arrest, trial, decision, judgement (if applicable).

The unusual process is a whack from a policeman.

Posters who believe that he may have behaved badly / criminally prior to this incident, and therefore carried some blame, should wonder what kind of society they want to live in, because they are condoning a tacit acceptance of the unusual process.

Ken Wells
10th Apr 2009, 17:09
I have to agree Mr Chips. As I said when I first saw the video I was appalled and reacted as alot of people did. But I am now not a sure as I was, about the events leading up to this tragic event.


How many time he had been asked to move
Obsrtructing the police ealier
Drunk ( as new reports now state)
Argumentative

I also agree the Samuel is about as effective as a Sports Jorno as John "AWOL" Prescot is as an MP.

Captain Stable
10th Apr 2009, 17:26
Pictures of the earlier confrontation here. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Brother-man-collapsed-G20-protests-died-heart-attack-age.html)

I don't care if the guy had an earlier confrontation, or if he was drunk.

If he was genuinely obstructing the police, then they could have arrested him. The assault on him was not justifiable. I really dislike the steady stream of innuendo from the right-wing press on this matter.

Eye witnesses have already said that the allegation of "bottles and other missiles" being hurled at the police as they tried to attend to Ian Tomlinson was a gross exxageration - that one empty plastic bottle was thrown before a demonstrator with a megaphone told people off, that an injured man was being attended to. Spin = lies.

alwayzinit
10th Apr 2009, 17:30
Is it just me?

But to [email protected] someone round the back of his head for being slightly peeved with being pushed around seems a bit like, well overkill, to coin a phrase (No pun intended)

This is not the first time the Met have waded into people exercising their democratic right to protest

The Hunting protest was dealt with in a similar manner, with a pensioner (female) being walloped by a nightstick.

From what I saw on the news the effective imprisionment of a large crowd of people in a square actually triggered quite a lot of the violence. Was that what The Met/Gov wanted?

The vast majority of those taking part seemed to be bunny and tree huggers and people p*ssed off with having a bunch of merchant bankers stuffing up their savings.

It's funny though isn't it. In the Crown's service we were told to Humanise ourselves not Dehumanise. Meaning not dressing up as a storm trooper/robocop to actually calm people down.

Why did the Met commander have his men as De human as poss?(If some one says 'Elf an Saftey I will burst a blood vessel!)

A sad day for what was once a noble public service.

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 17:53
El Grifo
Here is another link to an article that the Mail were running (thats the on Mr Chips was reading) before they changed the article an hour ago. This chap put the whole article on his Blogg.

The Photos’ Don’t Show A Riot Situation- No Death Penalty for Boozing-YET! Centurean2’s Weblog (http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/the-photos-dont-show-a-riot-situation-no-death-penalty-for-boozing-yet/)

An interesting thing the Mail were running earlier was this info

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.’



Wings Folded

that may answer your question as to why the officer has not been interviewed.

Mr Chips

The point of the above being, if a healthy burly policeman collapses and remains unconscious after seeing a video (the one we have all seen), why is it so difficult to imagine a physical assault with the undoubted psychological shock starting the sequence of events which led to the heart attack? The time lines are clear. Mr Tomlinson collapsed with a heart attack 3 minutes (that's 3 minutes) after the assault.

Ken

How many time he had been asked to move
Obsrtructing the police ealier
Drunk ( as new reports now state)
Argumentative

1. Irrelevant
2. Irrelevant
3. Irrelevant
4. Irrelevant

At the time of the event Mr T was walking away and no threat to the police or public. Tony Martin was jailed for shooting burglars because they were running away from him down the stairs. The police were not interested in what the burglars were doing 30 seconds earlier. They call it 'rule of minimum force', the policeman in question was outside that.

I do not know why we are all having this pi****g contest. There are Chief Constables saying exactly the same as many people here on JB. Have a go at them for saying that one of their own should be arrested and charged with manslaughter. They have only seen the video like the rest of us. Oh and they also know their own rules.

alwayzinit
10th Apr 2009, 18:01
Er boys(and ladeez:E)

Why was said "Peeler" having a panic attack if he had nothing wrong? Or was that he has been caught on film beating the B'jeepers out of chap moving away from him?

wings folded
10th Apr 2009, 18:01
So, Ken Wells, your initial reaction of being appalled is now tempered because of your four bullet points in your post of 17:09.

We can conclude that you think therefore that Mr Tomlinson's treatment may have been justified because of these apparent factors.

You have found a neat, quick and efficient way of dispensing justice.

I do not want to live in a society such as you seem to want to adhere to.

Mr Chips
10th Apr 2009, 18:13
Roger - I accept that it is possible that the assault caused the heart attack, although I am surprised that such an event would cause a heart attack. I have also wondered if the heart attack had already started, certainly not helped by the officer's actions. Perhaps the second PM will tell.

I can't imagine that officer ever being returned to TSG duty

I am interested to see however that the original reports of a man who was merely walking home are clearly wrong.

Alwayzinit - you may sish to consider toning down what you are saying. Although it appears that the TSG officer massively overreacted, he did not "[email protected] him around the back of the head" nor did he "beat the b'jeepers out of him". Perhaps you should watch the video a little more carefully

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 18:49
I am interested to see however that the original reports of a man who was merely walking home are clearly wrong.


What do you see as the major differences Mr Chips?

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 18:54
Mr Chips

I am interested to see however that the original reports of a man who was merely walking home are clearly wrong.


I am not sure they are wrong.


From The Telegraph (I think there journo has been doing a bit of rummaging to make up for a few days ago)
As Ian Tomlinson said goodnight to his friend Barry Smith after spending Wednesday, April 1 helping on his news-stand, he joked: "See you tomorrow Barry, if I'm still living and breathing."

It was a throwaway comment which later proved to be tragically poignant, as just half an hour later, Mr Tomlinson would be dead, having suffered a heart attack after he was allegedly thrown to the ground twice by police on duty for the G20 protests.

Mr Tomlinson, 47, who was jobless and battling alcoholism, filled his days helping Mr Smith and keeping him company from 7am until 8pm as he sold the Evening Standard outside Monument Underground station.

Mr Smith said: "He had a drink problem but that day hewas completely sober and was looking forward to starting work again the next day.
"I would normally close the stall at 8pm, but that night I had run out of papers by 7pm so I told him to go home. I keep thinking that if only I had had another bundle he would still be alive today."

This is what happened to Mr Tomlinson over the next half-hour, according to the accounts of eyewitnesses.

• 7pm: Mr Tomlinson sets off from Monument station up King William Street, heading home towards the Lindsey Hotel, a hostel for the homeless a mile north on Lindsey Street, on the other side of the City of London. He is easily recognisable in a grey T-shirt with the a picture of the Millwall footballer Neil Harris on the front and the words "All time leading goalscorer", with Harris's name and a large No.9 on the back.

The City has been the setting for all-day protests linked to the following day's G20 summit, but by the time Mr Tomlinson sets off police are trying to bring the protests to an end by penning demonstrators into a square outside the Bank of England.

Ryan Smith, a newspaper vendor at Bank Underground station who knew Mr Tomlinson, had seen him good-naturedly talking to police earlier in the day.

"He was speaking to a group of officers on a passageway between Cornhill and Lombard Street at around 4pm," he said. "But as far as I could see, everything seemed amicable - he didn't seem to be arguing with the police, he looked to be just having a chat. I can't believe that he would have provoked them because he was such a friendly guy and wouldn't hurt a fly."

One unconfirmed report last night suggested Mr Tomlinson did have an altercation with police at 6pm, though the exact details are unknown.

• 7.05pm: As he heads for the Bank of England, Mr Tomlinson tries to go through a police cordon at the junction of King William Street and Lombard Street but is turned away. He is thought to have turned down Lombard Street and then gone north towards Cornhill.

• 7.10pm: Mr Tomlinson arrives on Cornhill, but is again unable to head towards his home because of another police line. He turns east along Cornhill and then north up the pedestrianised Royal Exchange Passage, trying to find a way around the main area of protesters.

• 7.15pm: As he approaches Threadneedle Street, Mr Tomlinson finds riot police and dog handlers moving members of the public back towards Cornhill, and is allegedly assaulted for the first time. Anna Branthwaite, a 36-year-old freelance photographer, said: "The police had started to form a line and sweep the street. I saw a riot police officer grab Mr Tomlinson, and charge with him for about five steps. He had come up behind him.

"The officer then threw him to the ground. It was a very forceful impact and he landed on the left hand side of his body.

"Then the officer beat Mr Tomlinson twice with his baton while he was lying on the ground. I can't remember where on his body he was struck. I remember thinking at that point 'OK, that's an assault'. I didn't get a picture because an officer grabbed me by the arm.

"A police dog handler, who had an Alsatian, was close by and the dog was barking. I think the combination of being charged and the dog meant Mr Tomlinson scrambled to his feet.

"The same riot officer then grabbed him again and threw him forward. At that point, I was grabbed and told I had to leave. I moved forward."

Dr Justin Meggitt, 40, a senior lecturer in religious studies at Cambridge University standing at the same spot, said: "A man was on the ground and was hit. I don't know whether it was Ian Tomlinson but there was no apparent provocation. In all honesty, I don't have a recollection beyond it being a white male. My reaction was to go up to the policeman and take a picture of his face."

• 7.20pm: As he walks slowly down Royal Exchange Passage, his hands in his trouser pockets, Mr Tomlinson is caught on video by a New York-based fund manager who is in London on business and was watching the protests out of curiosity.

"I saw him wandering around," said the unnamed cameraman. He was just taking a look. He just got too close to the police line. It was absolutely horrible."

The video appears to show a riot policeman hitting Mr Tomlinson on the back of the legs with his baton before forcefully shoving him to the ground.

"I saw him suddenly fall back as if flung down with force," said Kezia Rolfe, 27. "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."

Amiri Howe, 24, said: "He got hit near the head with a baton... he just fell to the floor and hit his head again when he hit the floor."

The video shows Mr Tomlinson remonstrating with police as he lies on the ground, but the officers appear to show little concern for his wellbeing as he is helped to his feet by a passer-by.

Jasper Jackson, a 23-year-old journalist and photographer who took a picture of Mr Tomlinson after he got up, said: "He looked dazed and his eyes were glazed. He was walking really slowly."

• 7.25pm: Mr Tomlinson goes back into Cornhill, where he collapses. Peter Apps, a 20-year-old law student, said: "When I first saw him he was stumbling along the pavement on the left-hand side of the road. He was disorientated and collided with a wall that was jutting out of a shop, and then fell over."

Daniel McPhee, a 24-year-old social support worker, is one of the first on the scene. "I rang 999. I was on the phone. They said: 'Is he breathing?' Then they asked me to put him on his back. So with the help of the person I was with, we managed to get him on his back.

"Not long after that a group of four or five riot police came running out from the crowd and surrounded him. The ambulancewoman said to me 'can you pass me to the police?'. I said: 'I've got the ambulance on the phone. Do you want to speak to them?' They just ignored me."

Jasper Jackson said: "There were a couple of people throwing bottles in the direction. A bottle smashed near a Starbucks. Protesters told them to stop it. In fact they were threatening to kill other protesters if they did anything to disrupt the treatment."

• 7.30pm: Police medics on the scene call for London Ambulance Service support. He is taken to hospital where he is pronounced dead.

Ken Wells
10th Apr 2009, 19:04
do not want to live in a society such as you seem to want to adhere to.

You are free to leave anytime you want!!!!!

Calm down.

Ken Wells
10th Apr 2009, 19:09
Tony Martin was jailed for shooting burglars because they were running away from him down the stairs.
Shooting a pickey robbing your house is abit different than pushing someone.

the similie is irrelevant

max_cont
10th Apr 2009, 19:15
Roger Sofarover, I agree with you and those posters who are unhappy at what has occurred. I’m also in the camp that has had enough of this government’s idea of what constitutes protecting the population...but get your facts straight mate.

Tony Martin was jailed for shooting burglars because they were running away from him down the stairs


Tony Martin was jailed for shooting one scumbag in the leg and one in the back as they fled through a window trying to get away…i.e. no longer a threat warranting the use of deadly force. Had he shot them as they faced him on the stairs, there wouldn’t have been a problem.

This simple fact seems to be too difficult for some householders’ to grasp, leading to the erroneous claim we are all helpless when facing intruders in our homes.

El Grifo
10th Apr 2009, 19:21
I love your revisionist interpretation Wells.

Everybody and his dog, but not you apparently, can clearly see the guy getting whacked very hard on the legs and then being pushed very firmly to the ground.

All you appear to have seen is a very effete "push"

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 19:23
Max
The point being they were no longer a threat, so Martin contravened the principle of minimum force (bearing in mind it was total darkness). Ian Tomlinson was walking away, he was not a threat, the same principle is broken. The police did Martin, what about the policeman in question here?

hellsbrink
10th Apr 2009, 19:24
Shooting a pickey robbing your house is abit different than pushing someone.

the similie is irrelevant

Especially as Tony Martin had deliberately set up a trap for the pikeys by locking his dogs up, turning off the electricity so no lights could be turned on and then sat in wait on the stairs with his shotgun trained on the area the thieves would enter. His intention was to shoot them, and no matter what people think about why he did so murder is murder as it was completely premeditated. He did not care, his intention was to shoot someone no matter who it was.

And because of that, Ken, you are right. The two incidents are in no way comparable.

max_cont
10th Apr 2009, 19:40
Roger, Ian Tomlinson was walking away, he was not a threat No argument from me mate. It's high time we had some real accountability from those with power.

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 19:40
hellsbrink

Especially as Tony Martin had deliberately set up a trap for the pikeys

Have I got you right, set up a trap for someone he thought was going to rob his house, and they did, and the problem with that is?

Before this gets out of hand why don't you read the facts from the court itself rather than the media, then perhaps you can delete yoyr last post. Bye the way, nobody said the incidents are related, the point being made is that in both cases the rule of minimum force was broken. OK.

satpalramisguilty website: Regina v Tony Martin (http://www.geocities.com/satpalramisguilty/ram_tony_martin.html)

mustpost
10th Apr 2009, 19:50
Not often I would agree with hate mail readers, but unless this is a windup, this one is close to the mark
The police employ people with the psychological profile necessary to deal with aggressive criminals. This is what you get.
Of course, it would be helpful if street protesters were not also aggressive and violent. The one deserves the other. The public deserve neither.
Not suggesting the late Mr T was either, but confusion now seems to have arisen about who was playing what role, and to what degree of seriousness

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 20:04
mustpost

but confusion now seems to have arisen about who was playing what role, and to what degree of seriousness

really? you surprise me.

wings folded
10th Apr 2009, 20:09
Ken Wells...

I am free to leave when I want.....

But by your stance, I am not free to walk down a street.

You invite me to calm down.

Please clarify in what way you perceive me to be over excited.

And how about answering the other points I raised?

Or do you not have any answers?

Mr Chips
10th Apr 2009, 20:09
El Grifo - you asked me
"What do you see as the major differences Mr Chips? " in respect of the original stories and the new versions. Simple. There is now evidence that the victim had already come into contact with riot Police over an hour before this incident which rather suggests he was not simply on his way home having finished work. as earlier versions claimed. Nobody spends an hour and a bit in such an environment if they are simply on their way home. I'm not suggesting he was a demonstrator or that he was up to anything sinister, simply that the evidence shows a change in what we see to have happened, which doesn't seem to get acknowledged. The earlier "version" is shown in the following posts in this thread...

Post 16 "Mr. Tomlinson was not a protestor. He is well known in the area as a street newspaper vendor and was on his way home from work"


Post 43 "It seems probable that Mr Tomlinson was an innocent member of the public who was in the area because he was returning from his work and was caught up in the proceedings"

Post 71 (Quoting the BBC) "He was probably on his way back from work to watch the England match and got caught up in the crowds"

Post 102 "It seems that he had good reason to be where he was. He was trying to go home from his work."

Post 112 "and was apparently trying to get home through all this mess."

Post 170 "He had finished work and wanted to go home, he was not a protester and was not allowed to go home, where was he supposed to hurry to?"

Just making the point that as the story unfolds, so the story changes in many directions

Roger Sofarover
10th Apr 2009, 20:26
Mr Chips,
read the timeline above, it will help you understand. He did not spend an hour hanging around the area, the police would not let him out of the environment.. Reading the above will also help you avoid going through a couple of hundred posts for info, as admirable as that is. Mr T was going home, he couldn't get home, his paper buddy says Mr T left the newspaper stand at 7pm.

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Apr 2009, 02:30
I do wonder if Mr T had not had a heart attack and died would any of this ever of amounted to **** all :confused:

Roger Sofarover
11th Apr 2009, 04:25
SFFP

I do wonder if Mr T had not had a heart attack and died would any of this ever of amounted to **** all

Probably not, but the police thuggery would have then continued until eventually somebody else met a similar fate to Mr T.

El Grifo
11th Apr 2009, 10:30
Good morning Mr Chips,

Since you had the courtesy to reply to my question, it would only seem right that reply to your point.

Pls refer to post 204 where you wil find an extract from a Telegraph piece which may help settle your mind.

It seems entirely logical to me.

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Apr 2009, 14:03
Police thuggary................good grief :rolleyes:

EndResult
11th Apr 2009, 14:04
From what have gleaned from the press Tomlinson was definitely not the 'innocent' as suggested by some of the media. Tomilinson was well known to the police and had already gone out of his way to obstruct them. I am very disturbed to read things like this:


No doubt the Police will inform us soon that Mr Tomlinson's passport was out of date or he had an unpaid parking fine, was overdrawn at the bank or on probation and they mistook him for Abdullah Mohamed Amabomba an Ethiopian Muslim Extremist and they had to make an instant decision to take him out as the police dog couldn't walk around him on it's lead, and he looked very untidy to be on National TV.

Another example of how we permit murder in our society when it is conducted by our police. Now remind me why it is we can be done for hurting an intruder in our houses? Oh yes thats it the 'rule of minimum force'.

Poor bloke. RIP Mr Tomlinson


Rogersofar - You clearly have an agenda, care to enlighten us?

El Grifo
11th Apr 2009, 14:15
Tomilinson was well known to the police and had already gone out of his way to obstruct them.

And for that, he is now tits-up.

Is that justice as it should be in the UK today ?

Roger Sofarover
11th Apr 2009, 14:21
EndResult

Why so disturbed, it's a p**s take of what they tried to frame J C de Menzes for, and everything they said was proven to be a bag of lies. There is a lot of really important things going on in the world right now to be disturbed about, and the killing of Mr T is one of them. Ok it says murder, well on a technicality now and even before a trial, Chief Constables are already saying charge the man concerned with manslaughter

From what have gleaned from the press Tomlinson was definitely not the 'innocent' as suggested by some of the media. Tomilinson was well known to the police and had already gone out of his way to obstruct themWhat have you gleaned from the press that makes him definitely 'not the innocent'? You just don't get it do you. If he had done something that constituted an arrestable offence, then he should have been properly arrested. He had not done anything of that nature, so you tell me why he is deserved of the summary justice that was dished out? I hope he was very well known to the police, he stood outside Monument tube station every day selling newspapers and would have had a natter with the old bill as a matter of routine.

The spoof above is aimed exactly at people like you. Even if he obstructed the police, which he was not doing at the time, the treatment dished out was not in accordance with the rule of minimum force. So what is it you have read that makes it all ok? That makes him not innocent and deserving a good whacking?A Millwall supporter perhaps?, he has fathered 9 children? He had a drink problem? He only helped sell newspapers? He was a loser? There are some people on this site make me positively sick.

Edited to answer your edit

No agenda endresult. I want to see justice in this case with the correct 'end result'. Within 1 hour of Mr T death the police were already telling untruths again. JCdM family were not served justice, that was an utter disgrace, without public pressure and the video from the US citizen this would be water well down the river by now.

Just what is your agenda endresult?? are we a nu labour troll?

warkman
11th Apr 2009, 16:35
Thug Tomlinson should have looked after his weight and fitness then he would not have had the heart attack.
Nothing to do with the Police, more the fact he was an overweight man heading for an early death

Now I see the great unwashed and left wing scum are demonstrating today.
Surprise surprise.

Torque Tonight
11th Apr 2009, 17:05
Warkman, you're joking, right? He didn't appear to be acting thuggishly in the videos. You can't really believe that he had it coming because he wasn't in prime athletic condition, can you? Did he deserve to be assaulted and die because he was overweight? Nothing to do with the police - just a coincidence that he died within minutes of an illegal assault then. His state of health provides no defence to the police, just google 'thin skull principle'.

There are many respectable, professional, law abiding citizens who are thinking quite reasonably, "That could have been me. I could have been assaulted and killed by on-duty police for no good reason." The damage this sort of thing does to the trust that the population has in the police is immense, and this is the worst of many examples I could have mentioned.

Now I see the great unwashed and left wing scum are demonstrating today.
As a right wing, 'establishment' type, I'm half tempted to join them. This issue stinks.

There's a them-and-us atmosphere developing between the population and police/government and that is dangerous.

Storminnorm
11th Apr 2009, 17:06
WARKMAN, I reckon you're just trying to wind up a load of
elderly, overweight, totally unfit people. Who don't CARE!!!
But don't want the local Gestapo round to hurry them along.

Roger Sofarover
11th Apr 2009, 17:35
Warkman
Thug Tomlinson should have looked after his weight and fitness then he would not have had the heart attack.

you're a disgrace.

BarbiesBoyfriend
11th Apr 2009, 17:56
We pay the Police.

They are our servants.....it IS that simple.

They ought to remember it.

They are not there to tell us what to do or where to go or what to say.

They are only there to make the common good will of the people of this country known and enforced.

As soon as they stop doing that or start doing something else, they can f*ck off!

Edit to add: Warkman. You are either an idiot or a smackhead.

vonbag
11th Apr 2009, 19:40
I, once again, entirely agree with Roger

and BarbiesBoyfriend, too.

This type of negative cultural behaviour appears to be spreading, unfortunately.
In Italy any Public Office I have had to peruse over the years always gave me the feeling to be making a favour to me with their service, like if they weren't assigned and paid for doing it.
It feels like as one was at their service -- and disposal -- and they are just so kind to give you any attention.
This didn't happen in Holland until now, as far as I have experienced. Let's hope that this negative attitude remains "contained", circumscribed and, as such, can get solved with some good, at least, career limiting actions.

I am not a pessimist, nevertheless I nourish sour doubts regarding an effective solution to these kind of problems.

A big hail for better days to come!
Best,
vonbag

JennyB
11th Apr 2009, 21:32
Warwkman,

Has even the Courier stopped printing your nonsensical, right wing ramblings from a sad old man?

Actually, that would make a very popular column in the Daily Mail

Nonsensical Right Wing Ramblings from a Sad Old Man, byline Warkman

Would give Littlejohn a run for his money

Riskman
11th Apr 2009, 22:16
This makes interesting reading. If you are ever moved to join a protest you will know that you have already been judged by your "servants".

Police Forum: G20 Protests (http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11474)

mlc
11th Apr 2009, 23:12
This account may sound familiar.
There is an incident involving the deployment of a number of uniformed police officers. There are also various members of the public present; some violent offenders, some completely innocent and some, no doubt, able to switch either way depending upon how they feel or how much alcohol they have consumed, or what their cultural attitude to authority (specifically the police) might be.
http://inspectorgadget.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/roberts.jpg?w=219&h=295
Dead, but no Guardian campaign for him.
During this incident, a man is pushed over and later dies of a heart attack. The man who pushed him over was trying to push him, of that there is no doubt. But he wasn’t trying to kill him. The Coroner declared that the victim died of natural causes and the perpetrator was never charged with anything even approaching manslaughter or murder.
Sound familiar?
Here is where the story changes dimension.
The national papers cover it as a factual piece, BBC News Websites give it a bit but not too much and national radio is almost silent over the issue. Almost no one howls for summary justice or a special enquiry. Do you know of this incident?
The dead man was PC Chris Roberts, the offender was Patrick Savage and it happened almost invisibly in Brinkburn Gardens, Edgware on Boxing Day 2007. At first, when initial reports flashed out on the wires that a policeman had died during an incident in London, the media ran it as “Breaking News!”. As soon as the circumstances became clear, they binned it pretty quickly.

Sprogget
11th Apr 2009, 23:34
So what is your point? Two wrong's don't make a right? Or that a similar incident is reversed?

parabellum
12th Apr 2009, 00:00
They are not there to tell us what to do or where to go or what to say.

They are only there to make the common good will of the people of this country known and enforced.

Not really, they are there to uphold the law of the land, not quite the same thing is it?

BarbiesBoyfriend
12th Apr 2009, 00:57
Parabellum

But what is the 'law of the land' as you put it?

If it's not the 'common good will of the people of this country' as I put it.

Then what is it? The cops version of it maybe?

Think. Which bit is the tail and which bit the dog?

:ooh:

parabellum
12th Apr 2009, 14:51
the 'common good will of the people of this country'


Does not automatically translate to the law of the land, what the People want and what the People get are not necessarily the same.

G-CPTN
14th Apr 2009, 12:24
Having denied the existence of any relevant CCTV footage, it now seems that there is some:-
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Watchdog wrong in G20 CCTV claim (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7997990.stm)

El Grifo
14th Apr 2009, 18:35
I wonder what has changed, or what is visible on the CCTV, which we all knew was available from the outset.

For the "Police Watchdog" to now admit even more lies have been told, must mean that something important appears on the footage.

Either that or that some honest sod refuses to be silenced :suspect:

cockney steve
14th Apr 2009, 19:50
SURPRISE! On the news (BBC Radio2) tonight, CCTV footage of our custodians of the law, duffing-up a woman...big stick and head, IIRC......referred to the investigative authorities.

Me, another disaffected member of the law-abiding community.

foresight
14th Apr 2009, 20:33
BBC NEWS | England | London | Police to probe 'woman assault' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998976.stm)

The commentary implies the policeman was being provoked. Maybe she was just objecting to the treatment he was meeting out. Anyway the police are paid not to be provoked. Disturbing footage

El Grifo
14th Apr 2009, 21:24
Well to be honest , she WAS wearing one of those "Hippy" hats.

You never know what that lot are hiding up their sleeves.

Best to flatten the feckers pronto, before they assault you with a flower or some such dangerous implement.


Disgusting, but the true shape of policing reality in the UK today. :suspect:

frostbite
14th Apr 2009, 22:50
Seems quite a contrast between the way the police are ready, or even eager to 'have a go' in situations like these and yet, when you see some of the cops and motor thieves stuff on TV they seem most reluctant to make physical contact or even get close to scrotes.

vonbag
14th Apr 2009, 23:28
After reflection, it's not without sorrow that I decided to say: I think this is typical.
The security forces are afraid of real criminals
and are not of non-criminal people.
You can look up a peculiar story at this regard, concerning zigeuners not paying taxes -- for years! -- here in the flat lands. Nobody has had the guts to impose the law...
When it's easy -- or politically convenient -- to impose it, also violently, then you see it happening, also at your own honest and innocent citizen's expenses, like the late Mr. Tomlinson.
It's an inveterate way of doing, like the behaviour of the state police with powerful criminal organisations (e.g. the mafia):
with them they find compromises, with the simple people, maybe behaving a little bit out-law semel in anno, they put out their frustrations, as though of finally outing it on the convenient scapegoats.
:*

G-CPTN
15th Apr 2009, 00:40
A Metropolitan Police officer shown in YouTube video footage apparently hitting a woman during the G20 summit protests in London has been suspended.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Met suspends G20 footage officer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7999277.stm)

Maybe this is why they've made it an offence to photograph the Police (either in uniform or plain clothes)?
Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act permits the arrest of anyone taking photographs of the police, the armed forces, or the intelligence services

Roger Sofarover
15th Apr 2009, 04:16
Now where are all the 'pro Tomlinson beating lot'. At least you can see this woman swearing and provoking the policeman, why is nobody on here yet saying, 'the video may be edited', 'maybe he didn't really do it', 'that 6ft 2 copper should have hit the 5ft tall woman with the stick harder'? 'She deserved it!' or words to that effect.

Yet another reason why I am glad our police are not armed. I am not quite sure how they are going to enforce a 'no photo law' when the police are about. Does that mean all shop owners would have to turn off their own CCTV when protests come near their property? I think we need a different independent body to investigate the Independent PCC. I did think it rather foolhardy when the chairman of said IPCC claimed there were no CCTV cameras in the area of Mr Ts assault.

BabyBear
15th Apr 2009, 08:48
Totally unacceptable behaviour from this sergeant and he will be dealt with.

That said they do have the right to go to work and not be abused by a type of person I shall not speculate about. Or would you argue otherwise RS?

El Grifo
15th Apr 2009, 09:31
Good point Babybear.

In the interests of fairplay, I suppose ambulance crew should go to work without being exposed to the sight of blood

Fireman should be able to go to work without getting wet

And

Soldiers should be able to go to work without having nasty bullets fired at them.

:suspect:

Sprogget
15th Apr 2009, 09:38
I argue against that. As has been pointed out in this very thread, the police are trained not to rise to verbal provocation. The right to not be abused verbally is neither here nor there when deciding whether or not to unleash violence on a protestor. Police should police, not bite as this guy did.

BabyBear
15th Apr 2009, 09:38
El Grifo, so do you think it is acceptable that protestors call the police scum (as reported on the BBC) when policing a demonstration, or for that matter that anyone should be so abused in conducting their duties?

Sprogget

Just to be clear, are you therefore arguing that it is acceptable for protestors to hurl abuse at the police and that the police force and society should simply accept it?

Tyres O'Flaherty
15th Apr 2009, 09:53
Quite correct Sprogget


Police training is actually aimed at defusing a situation, ie ''conflict resolution''.

This has been found to be the simplest + cheapest way of dealing with public order.

Babybear, the abuse comes with the job, as I am very well aware, water off.

This officer failed to follow his (effectively) rules of engagement