Harry's Place

There should be no room for officers like this in the Met police.

There’s always plenty of room for officers like that in any police force. Where have you lived all your life?

Certainly throws a different light on some of the horribly reactionary stuff on a recent thread on this topic.

He was already dazed and confused before they pushed him, so the fall does not look to have anything to do with his death. He talked with the police right afterward. It’s questionable whether it was right of the officer to push him from behind, however Tomlinson did look to be uncooperative to their calls to clear the street. His hands cushioned his fall so no blow to the head seemed to occur. The alcohol confirmed to be in his system is what probably gave him the heart attack.

A sad and peculiar incident. No other person who came into contact with the police that day suffered any hospitalising injury – just bruises and scrapes – so it is very bizarre and unfortunate that someone collapses of a heart attack like this.

I though “Oh yeah” when I heard about this but having seen the video I AM shocked!

I note that before being struck he was walking quite strangely and I wonder if he was on the verge of a stroke where possibly his oxygen level was dropping and that made him slightly woozy. Its NOT an excuse for anything but an attempt to understand that maybe he was already at serious risk.

I have no doubt that the way he was barged to the floor would have put him through considerable shock and his cushioning of the fall was delayed slightly by his hands in his pockets. Given his size and weight the impact of the fall and total system shock cannot be under stated.

Its the sort of thing that could happen to any of us being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

God Rest his soul and condolences to the family. Not that its any consolation but they are due a huge pay-out over this.

I love this word “assaulted” that is being used by the media. They shoved the drunken man for not clearing the way after making repeated verbal requests. No evidence has emerged to indicate this was related to his heart attack. In a way this is actually good news for the police – at least we can put to bed this idea that they were wacking him around the head for no reason away from the cameras.

“Mike”: “The alcohol confirmed to be in his system is what probably gave him the heart attack”…”They shoved the drunken man for not clearing the way after making repeated verbal requests. No evidence has emerged to indicate this was related to his heart attack.” But you just said it was you fucking scumbag!

Of course NewLabour shite has to say that alcohol was responsible for everything. It must have been the drink and not the shoving, because drink is BAD! If you really think the police can do no wrong, you should keep the hell out of a left-wing blog. Now get the fuck out before I get really angry.

The alcohol confirmed to be in his system is what probably gave him the heart attack.

I didn’t know that. It would seem to fit with my observation of unsteadiness on his feet. As I’m not a boozer I looked-up the effects of alcohol on the body and a heavy session can greatly increase the possibility of heart failure.

The shock of the fall could certainly have led to that possibility being much higher.

I still feel he died because of the action of the police.

Mike: “I love this word “assaulted” that is being used by the media. They shoved the drunken man for not clearing the way after making repeated verbal requests.”

The copper pushed a man who was walking away, who had his back to him and who had his hands in his pockets. That doesn’t mean that the copper tried to kill him or that he even intended to cause him injury. It was, however, an assault. It’s unfortunate – for the man and the policeman – that he later died. Had he not died, it would have just been yet another bit of physical argy bargy, the kind of thing that goes on every day. But its frequency still doesn’t mean that it’s not an assault. It was an assault, clearly.

Of course NewLabour shite has to say that alcohol was responsible for everything.

The truth is out, as discovered by Cipriano – it was Tony Blair wot did it. He gets everywhere, the scumbag.

Its hardly an example of extreme police violence is it. Its becoming clear that the guy was not in the best of health, but I dont see how the police can be responsible for his death

They shoved the drunken man for not clearing the way after making repeated verbal requests.

But there was plenty of room to go around him and completely ignore him. He wasn’t an obvious protestor. He was obviously drunk. Did they really expect him to be logical and able to comprehend the instruction, and walk away smartly when its clear he already had difficulty walking anyway.

I usually side with the argument about protests that “They deserve everything they get” but NOT this one. He was a drunk bystander assaulted by a policeman

He was assaulted, certainly.

But manslaughter?

Can it be proved that pushing him to the ground directly caused his heart attack?

I’m not so sure.

but I dont see how the police can be responsible for his death

Scrote breaks into old person’s house for robbery. Hits old person on the head but the wound is superficial. Two days later the old person dies of a heart attack. Manslaughter is the charge. How many times do you hear “We started to investigate this as a robbery – its now a murder enquiry”

There should be no room for officers like this in the Met police.

Oh, go and tidy your room, will you?

If this film shows what it appears to show, and if the context is as we understand it to be, this is very possibly evidence of the ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter of a blameless man.

Nonsense! I know nothing of the grounds for apportioning blame in a legal context, but common sense tells me that pushing someone in the back does not and calling it manslaughter only helps the ambulance chasers.

If that is so, how will the police retain the trust of the public?

Balderdash! The vast majority of the police are excellent public servants and do perform their roles in an exceptional fashion.

The only reason anyine would ever lose faith in the police would be for their emasculation and politicisation post-Macpherson at the hands of the hegemonic left. You could argue that, by extention, Macpherson, his cronies, and bodies like the Runnymede Trust are guilty of manslaughter and worse.

Basically a bloke going about his business, even if questionably sober, as I hope we have all been from time to time, was assaulted by the police because of not immediately obeying orders to get out of the way. It is, I’m afraid, not obligatory to allow the police to order one around if one is not breaking the law. The police are frequently a bit bossy and slap-happy, and if harm comes of this they need the book thrown at them.

I think that no sane individual should condone or excuse the action of that policeman for attacking a man from behind, as he’s peacefully walking down the street with his hands in his pockets.

It really all depends on the medical evidence. But if it shows that there was a connection between the shove and the heart attack, and if a jury find that the shove was an unlawful assault, this would be manslaughter.

Mark T
“He was assaulted, certainly.
But manslaughter?”

Yes, probably. There was an old fella round our way a few months ago who, during the course of a bit of heavy pushing and pulling with a younger man he bumped into on the pavement, collapsed and died of a heart attack. The verdict was manslaughter. Why? Maybe to reinforce the simple, yet often forgotten, message that you can’t go round pushing, punching and grabbing hold of people like a violent fucking twat – whether you’re a policeman or not.

I mean, it is just remarkable, isn’t it?

Perhaps context is everything. This is not a guy just walking down the street being pushed to the ground by a policeman for no good reason. Its someone mixed up in a demonstration. Its unlikely the police knew he was ,just, a drunk in the wrong place at the wrong time!

Thanks David. I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what the coroner says.

I think that no sane individual should condone or excuse the action of that policeman for attacking a man from behind, as he’s peacefully walking down the street with his hands in his pockets.

Well, I imagine it depends on the context. He could have just suddenly appeared from a side street, unaware that the police were moving people on, and then immediately gets shoved to the ground. Which would indeed be disgraceful.

On the other hand, he could have been asked, repeatedly, to move away by the police, and had not done so. The shove, while still wrong, is then less serious.

There’s always plenty of room for officers like that in any police force. Where have you lived all your life?

A good part of it in Brixton where this sort of thing (and worse) used to happen on a regular basis.

I repeat there is no room for someone like this in the Met Police. Whether such people actually manage to hold onto jobs in the Met police at the moment is neither here nor there.

Drunk or sober, there is no evidence that he presented any risk or hazard to the police or public. A bloke who was not breaking the law, was struck down by a police officer, and then he died in the street. Now it may be, that a couple of hours elapsed between the police encounter, and the death. And none of us can know what happened to him in that timespan. We have to be careful about that. But an independant enquiry is obviously needed. Because at no point in the video did he do anything more aggressive or illegal than saunter along with his hands in his pockets. And we have every right to know why such a person can be knocked to the the ground by the police.

There should be no room for officers like this in the Met police.

Oh, go and tidy your room, will you?

I see. You think the police should be full of bullies and assorted scum do you?

I think that no sane individual should condone or excuse the action of that policeman for attacking a man from behind, as he’s peacefully walking down the street with his hands in his pockets.

I’m compos mentis, but unless you can see more than I did from the video, it seems to me that Mr Tomlinson was taking the michael with his hands thrust in his pockets…his rosy complexion suggests chronic alcoholism too.

Of course, if I were allowed to speculate…

I would suggest that – on the balance of probability – the police officer in question is likely to have been geared up for an exciting bit of argy-bargy, and as that had (sadly for him) been in short supply all day, probably decided to take out his pent-up aggression on a hapless passer-by who wasn’t moving quite quickly enough.

Many bad things have been perpetrated by the Met but surely this isnt one of them ( By the way I worked in Brixton for 25 years , not in the police! ) Rodney King this is not!

it seems to me that Mr Tomlinson was taking the michael with his hands thrust in his pockets

Oh great Griff Rhys Jones is in:

I know he’s a jailbird, Savage, he’s down in the cells now! We’re holding him on a charge of being caught in possession of curly black hair and thick lips!

I see. You think the police should be full of bullies and assorted scum do you?

I’d rather the police were ’scum’ as you put it working within the confines of the law rather than living with the ’scum’ that populate our streets.

I’d prefer a large 20ft high perimeter fence erected just west of Rush Green then you lot in London proper can enjoy the delights to yourselves rather than exporting it into the greatest part of England.

Runciford -

oh, I see; walking around with your hands in your pockets in view of authority is evidence of an anti-social attitude, is it? Well, if he’d been a member of HM Armed Forces on duty, you’d be right…but he wasn’t, was he? Nor is having a red face conclusive evidence of being drunk and disorderly in a public place, is it? Gosh recent governments have succeeded in inculcating some remarkably authoritarian attitudes.

It really all depends on the medical evidence. But if it shows that there was a connection between the shove and the heart attack, and if a jury find that the shove was an unlawful assault, this would be manslaughter.

The autopsy found no bruises or marks on the man.

Errm. why should we accept that the police can go around striking non violent people with batons and shoving them around, just because they fail to obey “orders”. It is of course clear to me by now that Mark works for the Met.

Mike!

What does it take then Mike – for you to admit to what’s in front of your fucking eyes?

Anyone who still intends to vote Labour after this deserves the same treatment that poor Mr Tomlinson got.

Bunch of venal, corrupt bastards.

Oh great Griff Rhys Jones is in

More anti-Essexman bigotry from you, I see.

I feel for Mr Tomlinson’s family, but it doesn’t seem to me that what the copper did was excessive.

I mean Mike works for the Met of course.

I’d rather the police were ’scum’ as you put it working within the confines of the law rather than living with the ’scum’ that populate our streets.

Well if its all the same to you I’d much rather they were a professional body of men and women who were able to face a demonstration without killing innocent newspaper sellers who were on their way home from work.

I bet if the victim was a commie anarchist or a muslim extremist, then people would be on the side of the police

why should we accept that the police can go around striking non violent people with batons and shoving them around, just because they fail to obey “orders”. It is of course clear to me by now that Mark works for the Met.

Err… where did I suggest that the police can strike non-violent people with batons?

More anti-Essexman bigotry from you, I see.

Griff Rhys Jones is from Cardiff

Hmm! In the context of most police forces respones in most European cities ( not to mention the rest of the world ) Getting a shove in the back in the middle of a demo is pretty bloody mild.

Case of mistaken identity, Mrs B!

Don’t baton me.

I don’t think it was right to push him in the back, obviously, but from this officers point of view it appeared that Tomlinson was refusing to move on purpose. It turns out that he was simply drunk.

Personally I don’t think the officer should lose his career over a shove and safe baton to the leg – unless they can find evidence that the fall caused his heart attack.

Perhaps context is everything. This is not a guy just walking down the street being pushed to the ground by a policeman for no good reason. Its someone mixed up in a demonstration. Its unlikely the police knew he was ,just, a drunk in the wrong place at the wrong time!

Well said.

Mike:
“Its unlikely the police knew he was ,just, a drunk in the wrong place at the wrong time!
Well said.”

So you’re saying that you think it right that a drunk (and a fairly harmless one at that) sauntering along the street deserves to be batoned in the leg and pushed to the ground? That is – you’re saying that the police have every right to just push anyone they see fit around? Amazing.

Do you mean that someone mixed up in a demonstration can only expect to be pushed over onto his face by a policeman if he doesn’t go where the copper tells him to?

On the Put People First demo on Saturday I saw a line of police officers jogging up the protest before it began chanting ‘let’s get ready to rumble’.

If this is the attitude that the police began a week of intense policing with it shouldn’t be surprising they decided to baton some bloke and push him to the ground for that well known offence of ‘walking away from a police officer too slowly’.

Paul – yes, it’s incredible what sort of General Franco clones we get on here sometimes.

I don’t know what this bullshit about losing trust in the police is about. There were scenes of protesters eating batons are various points of the day – that was more upsetting to watch then this particular piece of video.

This video shows thuggish, bullying behaviour from a police officer. It shows an assault. I can’t imagine what additional context could justify it.

Even if the guy was not cooperating, he could have been physically removed without being pushed. It is clear from the position of the police officer immediately as the guy hits the ground that the force used was unreasonable.

(Though of course only more evidence will show whether there is a direct connection between the assault and Tomlinson’s death.)

The above attempts to excuse what happened range from disturbing to reprehensible.

Err, Paul, I wouldn’t necessarily agreeing with Mike, but in a paragraph starting with the phrase ‘context is everything’, it’s a bit cheeky to lop out all the context.

Don’t you think?

*agree* with Mike

I don’t know what this bullshit about losing trust in the police is about.

You will realise very quickly what it is about when we are treated to a repeat of the riots of 30 years ago.

Duncan – thank you for that. I imagine the lesson learned by future demonstrators from this affair is that they’ll have to be better armed to confront the police. And where will that get us?

Paul, they were clearing the street, you idiot, using dogs as well. That’s why the loud mouths behind the camera were pulling back. To the police he was not just some man walking along. Please stop that crap.

Its someone mixed up in a demonstration.

Well that’s all right then. Obviously anyone who has the audacity to be “mixed up in a demonstration” thoroughly deserves to viciously attacked from behind, thrown to the ground, and threatened with batons and dogs by a gang of masked men. I mean, that’s democracy isn’t it?

There really are some scumbags on this blog these days.

you people think Britain is a police state?

Go to Egypt, Iran hell even parts of Europe and then youll see what a TRUE police state is.

Many bad things have been perpetrated by the Met but surely this isnt one of them ( By the way I worked in Brixton for 25 years , not in the police! ) Rodney King this is not!

Shhh! The silence you here is the sound of the Grauniad report into the murder of PC Keith Blakelock by savages unknown.

Griff Rhys Jones is from Cardiff

Haha! I don’t why but I thought he was born in Epping.

I think the police have a very hard job. And I’m amazed that there aren’t more police assaults out there. If it were me, I’d be pushing everyone around. But that’s one of the reasons why I’m not a copper. I’d be rubbish at it. The bottom line, simply, is this: if you’re a copper, you can’t just attack people, for whatever reason. It doesn’t matter if you’re under pressure, or if it’s ‘understandable’. You don’t do it. Because it’s assault. And if you do do it – and get caught doing it – expect to face the consequences.

That there are people on here defending that copper’s actions is beyond me. As I’ve said, he’s unlucky that his assault turned out the way it did and that he was filmed doing it. But being unlucky isn’t the same as being innocent.

I am somewhat shocked by the range of excuses, eye-in-the-sky (as if they were there at the time) petty rationalisations and quasi-justification taking place here.

The man was attacked from behind.

The man CLEARLY was no threat to anyone, still less of a threat to a large policeman, in riot gear carrying, a baton.

Ah! He got a whack on the back of the leg and a bit of a shove. This is not by any stretch of the imagination police brutality. Its in the middle of a fairely violent demo when the police were trying to clear the area. They didnt as far as I am aware know he was ‘just’ a drunk.

Even if the guy was not cooperating, he could have been physically removed without being pushed. It is clear from the position of the police officer immediately as the guy hits the ground that the force used was unreasonable.

Well said. A line of policemen could very easily have secured a suspect and removed him to a position behind themselves where he could be questioned (if they thought him to be being deliberately obstructive.)

That would have been a manoeuvre which would not be beyond the most junior mental health support worker, so I am afraid we must conclude this copper was just being aggressive purely because he felt he could be.

Its unlikely the police knew he was ,just, a drunk in the wrong place at the wrong time!

Well if we can tell, I’m, pretty sure the policemen could (unless of course you’re claiming they’re idiots).

This man was doing nothing wrong other than being a bit lazy. He’s not even giving any backchat. He was walking away. A simple, gentle push in the back would have sufficed, or even threaten to arrest him (and then do so) if they think he’s being particularly belligerent (which walking away with your hands in your pockets isn’t).

Both or these were options and infinitely preferable to hitting his leg with a baton and shoving him to the ground with such force the copper himself almost staggers.

Extraordinary behaviour and a shocking abuse of power

Mike, I still don’t get your logic (though I sure as hell get your gist). If the police are clearing the street, using dogs as well (sounds like threatening behaviour to me) then a man who is walking down the street has no more right to do so? Please go to Beijing, NOW.

Mike: “Paul, they were clearing the street, you idiot”

See, it’s people like you that turn reasonable debate/disagreement into something else. Why the need to call me an idiot? I’m not bleating – I’ve been called worse – but I don’t understand why you feel that’s appropriate. Nice one.

Obviously anyone who has the audacity to be “mixed up in a demonstration” thoroughly deserves to viciously attacked from behind, thrown to the ground, and threatened with batons and dogs by a gang of masked men. I mean, that’s democracy isn’t it?
There really are some scumbags on this blog these days.

Nobody has said that he deserved to any of that.

As far as I can tell, even the person who is leaning the most towards defending the police has stated that Tomlinson was assaulted.

Read what is written before you jump in with twatty accusations.

I think the police have a very hard job. And I’m amazed that there aren’t more police assaults out there. If it were me, I’d be pushing everyone around. But that’s one of the reasons why I’m not a copper. I’d be rubbish at it.

Egg bloody zactly.

Correction, he stated that it was wrong for him to be shoved to the ground.

However, he certainly did not state that he ‘thoroughly deserved’ to be viciously attacked from behind.

Mike,
When you knock the legs out from under a bloke who has his hands in his pockets, he has a high likelihood of falling heavily and hitting his head on the ground. You shouldn’t do that unless he is presenting a threat. And if you feel you have to do it, surely you have a duty to make sure he gets a checkup afterwards?

Now I don’t like videos like this. I like videos that are unedited, and show a whole load of boring tedious irrelevant footage. Because at least then you know you are looking at something unsanitised. What happened at the begining that we have not seen? What happened at other points that we also have not seen?

This is why an independant enquiry is needed. I am not sure that the Coroner will have sufficient clout to sort this mess out. But when you see that man lying on the street, he has bloodstains on his face.

Somebody did something to him, at some time, that afternoon, didn’t they?

Mod, I am suspicious of people who want to take the moral high ground and demand that no context to the situation be allowed. It’s pointless posing in my view.

People can pretend this guy wasn’t in the middle of a violent demonstration where police were being attacked by bottles all day, and pretend that police weren’t clearing the street, but don’t expect me to go along with it.

Ah! He got a whack on the back of the leg and a bit of a shove. This is not by any stretch of the imagination police brutality.

Where do these people come from? The police don’t have the right to beat people up you know. It’s AGAINST THE LAW. You know, that thing the police are paid to uphold?

But when you see that man lying on the street, he has bloodstains on his face

What on earth are you talking about? There were no bloodstains on his face. The autopsy also found nothing like this. He talked with police and walked off.

I feel some people are trying to wind up old Mike on this one.

As regards whether the incident will lead to mistrust of the police, I agree the stupid actions of one police officer should not be enough to tarnish the entire police force – but that the official report of the incident did not even mention that Tomlinson was pushed by a police officer doesn’t exactly inspire trust, does it?

AJ2, twice you have defended the police’s actions by stating that they had no way of knowing that he wasn’t a protester. How would that make it all right? Does being a protester make you fair game for being assaulted, regardless of whether you are posing a physical threat? Even if it was a “fairly violent” demo (which I doubt it was), it doesn’t look to me like Tomlinson was “in the middle” of anything.

(I also find it ironic that you find the label “police brutality” inaccurate, but can characterize the demonstrators as “fairly violent”.)

Ah, I probably deserve it.

Eh! He wasnt by any streach of the imagination beaten up and the police have the right to use ‘reasonable’ force in this context

“People can pretend this guy wasn’t in the middle of a violent demonstration where police were being attacked by bottles all day, and pretend that police weren’t clearing the street, but don’t expect me to go along with it.”

No-one pretends the police weren’t clearing the street, fuckwit. We’re just saying that a decision by the filth to “clear the street” doesn’t automatically cancel a piss-artist’s right to walk down it. Sorry, but we are allowed to demonstrate in this country, and even to exist in a place where a demo is going on, if we’re not breaking the law, which this guy wasn’t. Bloody hell, isn’t it about time to come to terms with the outcome of the Second World War?

AJ2, twice you have defended the police’s actions by stating that they had no way of knowing that he wasn’t a protester. How would that make it all right?

It’s relevent because they thought he was ignoring their demands to clear the street, even though they had dogs. They must have thought he was a bit of a nutter to do that. I don’t think the officer imagined that he would tumble over like that.

I’m not saying the push was okay – as I say, I disagree with this – but it must have been frustrating that this one guy was refusing to move along like everybody else was starting to. I’m sure there was lots of shoves like this during that day. Nothing particularly unusual about it.

police have the right to use ‘reasonable’ force in this context

By no stretch of the definition of reasonable force was this reasonable force

Mike, individual responsibility is the key here. Context or not, a policeman should be trained to know that hitting and pushing a man in this fashion is completely unacceptable.

What “context” would sanction that kind of action, in your opinion?

Cipriano, no, the police have the power to move people along. They were given orders to clear the street – they are not going to fuck around allowing the old drunk to cruise past them.

People like you are using this incident to talk about something else really. I don’t think its right to use this man’s death to whip up hatred of the police and spread propaganda.

Mike:
“Nothing particularly unusual about it.”

And you call me an idiot? Priceless.

Read this bit slowly so it sinks in: that it’s not necessarily unusual doesn’t make it right. Or justifiable. It’s still assault. And it’s still fucking unnecessary.

Sorry, should read “this was NOT reasonable force”

I think I’m going slightly insane – please ignore my previous comment.

I’ve never been to Britan or know any of it’s laws or even heared of this story until now, so I can’t tell you I really have an oppinion. But with my familiarity with “exposed misconduct” I believe people should at least wait until the police complaints watchdog start investigating this thing.

I would also like to ask some questions about this disscution.

I’ve never been to Britan or know any of it’s laws or even heared of this story until now, so I can’t tell you I really have an oppinion. But with my familiarity with “exposed misconduct” I believe people should at least wait until the police complaints watchdog start investigating this thing.

“I would also like to ask some questions about this disscution.”

You need to talk to Mike. He’s got all the answers.

What “context” would sanction that kind of action, in your opinion?

They’re not social workers – if someone is not going to move then they have to move them. If this guy wasn’t drunk and unwell then he would probably have just stumbled a bit and moved back. The key is to listen to riot police and not go to the front line of one of these types of demos. Before the day the police did warn that they expected it to be violent.

Yes its the old ‘police brutality ‘ game isnt it I know I’ve played it myself. But how on earth can this ultimately tragic incident be seen this way in the context of what happens thoughout europe’s police forces in dealing with ‘violent’ demonstrations let alone what happens in the rest of the world.

“It’s relevent because they thought he was ignoring their demands to clear the street, even though they had dogs. They must have thought he was a bit of a nutter to do that.”

WTF? First of all, it’s spelt “relevant”, retard. Secondly. I see we’ve moved from “requests”to “demands” that the street be cleared. Thirdly, I don’t see why the fact that the police have dogs in any way enhances their “demands”. Either the guy had a right to walk down the street or he hadn’t. And he had, even if people were threatening him with dogs. Fourthly, it’s news to me that if the police think you’re a bit of a nutter it gives them a right, or more of a right, to shove you to the ground. Once more, you need to be in China. You don’t belong in a free country – you haven’t got the idea.

So, we’re all agreed then?

The policeman used justifiable force to contain a possibly violent, inebriated dawdler with ‘andz in iz pockets.

The police deserve a resounding pat on the back for the exemplary behaviour they exhibited in the face of violent, baying provocation

Cipriano, is there any need to be quite so rude?

Mike:
“The key is to listen to riot police and not go to the front line of one of these types of demos.”

Yes. Otherwise you could end up being assaulted. Or killed. It’s your own fault. The same goes for all you women out there: the key is not to go out after dark or wear short skirts or walk through the park. Otherwise you could end up assaulted. Or raped. It’s your own fault. Right, Mike?

So, we’re all agreed then?

Evidently not.

You clearly dont remember the miners strike. If the police think you are about to commit a ‘breach of the peace’ they can arrest you . And if you obstruct a public highway!

Mike,

I am not interested in your views.

I have long since given up assuming that you are rational or capable of admitting the bleeding obvious, when it goes against your entrenched views.

Just so you’re clear, I am not interested in your views or excuses for this unnecessary attack.

Mike, that’s all very plural. What happened here is ONE police officer pushed and hit a man. He needs to be accountable for his actions.

Your contextualising is precisely the same strategy that is used to defend war crimes. And fails, I should add.

mod:
“I have long since given up assuming that you are rational or capable of admitting the bleeding obvious, when it goes against your entrenched views.”

Seconded.

In fact, I’ve got a better idea.

Can I suggest we all wait until the inquest?

Because frankly this is getting quite boring now.

Mark T -

You’re probably right. But when someone comes on with views which I really can’t reconcile with the – broad enough – spectrum of this blog, I do tend to go in all guns firing. But I do take your point.

Paul
7 April 2009, 10:01 pm

I think the police have a very hard job. And I’m amazed that there aren’t more police assaults out there. If it were me, I’d be pushing everyone around.
——————-

I think they have a hard, complex, and thankless job too. But one of those officers appears to have made the entire situation much worse.
This entire operation would have melted into history without this singular incident which is linked to a fatality.
The Met are better than this, and they should not be closing ranks around a fool, if his conduct has no valid defence. There has to be an independant enquiry.

I agree Mark, regardless of the outcome of the inquest, people are always gonna complain on how the officer in question should have got murder

“Can I suggest we all wait until the inquest?
Because frankly this is getting quite boring now.”

Sorry to state the obvious but… if you find it boring can’t you just go elsewhere? The telly’s still on, isn’t it? You must have an iPod or something? A couple of books? Better still, why not get involved in a discussion that isn’t boring to you? See, I think cricket’s boring. So I don’t watch it. What I don’t do is turn up to cricket matches telling the fans and players that cricket’s boring. Because that would be a silly, and utterly pointless, thing to do.

And yes, I know I’m boring…

Well, perhaps boring is the wrong word.

Pointless is perhaps more apposite.

It’s pointless posing in my view. Says Mike!

Well there’s the first sensible thing he’s said all night.

Bloody corrupt Labour supporters – why don’t they just Fuck Off to LabourLost and waste time there.

“Pointless is perhaps more apposite.”

You’re still here? Christ, how much more boring does it have to get before you find something more interesting to do? Why torture yourself like this Mark?

I did get involved in the discussion.

I then quickly realised that one set of people think that a police officer committed manslaughter. Another set of people think that the force used was justified, if placed in context.

Frankly there’s no way that there’s going to be any agreement based on 30 seconds of grainy footage.

I’m just trying to help you all out! : )

It’s pointless posing in my view. Says Mike!

Well there’s the first sensible thing he’s said all night.

Bloody corrupt Labour supporters – why don’t they just Fuck Off to LabourLost and waste time there.

Do you think the Tory’s would have a different view on policing?

“…Because frankly this is getting quite boring now…”

Yes indeed! Does that mean you’ll stop posting then Mark T ?

AJ2:

Fair question – to which the answer is – NO!

But then I don’t vote Tory. Sorry, but to be anti Labour does not automatically make you a Tory.

Silent Hunter
7 April 2009, 10:50 pm

AJ2:

Fair question – to which the answer is – NO!

But then I don’t vote Tory. Sorry, but to be anti Labour does not automatically make you a Tory.

Yes but its the only alternative igovernment is it not?

Mark – here’s something you might find less boring. I watched Religulous, the new Larry Charles/Bill Maher documentary about/against religion this evening and it was just fantastic. Absolutely wonderful. Funny, even-handed (attacking all the major faiths) and, ultimately, completely damning. Perfect viewing for all right-minded people. Essential viewing for all wrong-minded people.

Paul, are you reading my comments?

Evidently not.

But thank you for the recommendation – sounds good.

“Evidently not.”

Hmm, I think I may have misread your ‘pointless/apposite’ comment as some kind of dig at me – that I was more pointless than boring. Or something. Never mind.

I think they have a hard, complex, and thankless job too. But one of those officers appears to have made the entire situation much worse.
This entire operation would have melted into history without this singular incident which is linked to a fatality. The Met are better than this, and they should not be closing ranks around a fool, if his conduct has no valid defence. There has to be an independ[e]nt enquiry.

Quite. I would actually have a lot more respect for the Met/City of London police if they didn’t seem to motivate a rumour-factory after the events, doggedly sticking to stories which later transpire to be flaky. There are several police who witness this guy get pushed over; presumably his photo has since been circulated; so the police were clearly aware of this incident before it was made public by a NY stockbroker via the Guardian. So why not admit that they have concerns, that there aspects of the day which require close investigation? Why not make “We are concerned with the potential conduct of certain officers during the riots and will do our best to investigate any allegations of misconduct” the official line, rather than defensively spinning the entire official reaction?

No, that wasn’t my intention.

What I should have said, initially (rather than bluntly labelling the discussion pointless) was that there’s a whole shedload of information missing about this situation – his injuries, witness statements, what (if anything) happened beforehand/afterwards – and we’re not going to be able to make any definitive statements about the rightness/wrongness of what happened on the basis of this clip. We can speculate, but it’s not going to get us very far.

It looks horrendous, certainly – and the knowledge that he later died compounds that.

But I’d rather wait for all the facts to come out.

@Paul, obviously. I meant the discussion, rather than you, was pointless.

The policeman involved is at best, guility of assault, at worst, manslaughter.

I mean, from the Guardian article below the video, witnesses are talking of an altercation between the police and Tomlinson that took place off camera before the incident we see in the video.

Again, depending on your viewpoint, that either makes the police conduct much much worse (they were going after him systematically) or slightly better (the police had – in a charitable interpretation – identified him as someone who was out to cause trouble).

We have a shortage of facts. Wait for the inquest.

Whether or not the Police action was causal to the man’s death is completely irrelevant to the judgment about the correctness of the behaviour of the officer concerned (although obviously not to the possible outcomes after the event).

I have no problem with the Police using force against violent protestors, but the man is clearly pushed inappropriately from behind.

I must say I find Silent Hunter’s rather egregious and irrelevant politicisation of this very sad occurrence quite unsavoury.

On the basis of that footage, I feel pretty shocked. That seems to be casual thuggery from the police officer.

One of the sad things about this is the way both camps have obscured the issue for tawdry gain. On the one hand, I’m genuinely surprised and shocked that the police haven’t come clean on what occurred before now (assuming they had the information?). On the other, it was disgusting to see the protesters erroneously claim Tomlinson as one of their own, hold sick-making vigils and start to point score off the police and make wider points about the difficult (and in my view generally exemplary) policing of a demonstration in which a minority of violent anarchists sought to bring disorder and criminality to London’s streets.

It would be nice if we could give Mr Tomlinson and his family the respect they deserve, and consider this issue as a very real human tragedy in need of proper investigation, quite separate from any general political points about the demo and its policing, whatever our views on that.

Hmm – doesn’t look good for those officers. The odd thing is though they obviously didn’t think they’d done anything wrong, look at the way they just stand around while people are filming them afterwards. How much force exactly are the police alowed to use to clear their way ? They’re allowed to use some force in these situations, to forcefully push people around and even use batons on crowds. Anybody pushed around who falls over might have a heart attack afterwards – does that mean we stop all forecful policing of violent demos ?

I imagine all those issues will come up in any trial and be used in defence.

The main thing is that this one incident if found to be manslaughter shouldn’t be allowed to be used by ultra Left filth and anarchists to make their violent demos more uncontrolled in future.

In the same way as if Mr Tomlinson had died by being hit by a bottle it shouldn’t mean all demonstrations everywhere being banned.

Mod, I am not particularly interested in what you say either, butyour moral grand standing statement about only sane rational people could agree with you deserve a response.

Somehow I suspect if this guy was a Palestinian then you would be a little more understanding of the context, but there you go.

Hmm – doesn’t look good for those officers. The odd thing is though they obviously didn’t think they’d done anything wrong, look at the way they just stand around while people are filming them afterwards.

That’s a good point. There were no real gasps from the ground either. They had done the sensible thing and moved back so I don’t think it would have surprised them that the person who didn’t was in the shit.

How much force exactly are the police alowed to use to clear their way ? They’re allowed to use some force in these situations, to forcefully push people around and even use batons on crowds. Anybody pushed around who falls over might have a heart attack afterwards – does that mean we stop all forecful policing of violent demos ?

Excellent common sense remark there. Because by some freak coincidence this man ended up dying a few minutes later, people are seeing this in an entirely different way. That’s really the point that I’m trying to make. Yes the push was a little excessive and the officer needs a verbal telling off for doing that, but the idea that this is a great example of police brutality or manslaughter, as some people are saying, is a fat load of bollocks.

I imagine all those issues will come up in any trial and be used in defence.

It sort of reminds of how people demanded that Tony Blair resign because Dr Kelly had decided to kill himself. Does that mean the boss of anyone who is suspended for misconduct and decides to kill themselves is therefore responsible for the death and should have to resign? The analogy isn’t quite the same but the way people refuse to think straight is very similar.

Mike – this dismissive reference to Dr Kelly, who killed himself because the security services were about to give him a fearsome going over, just shows what an authoritarian wanker you seem to be. Yes, the Tomlinson affair needs a proper inquiry, but I suspect it wouldn’t get one if you had any say because you clearly think anyone not jumping to it when the police say something deserves anything he gets. Sieg Heil!

AJ2:
Yes but its the only alternative igovernment is it not?

Yes, you’re probably right, but I would only vote for them as a last resort to remove a sitting Labour MP.
I support the “anyone but Labour’ party at present.

Ben:
I must say I find Silent Hunter’s rather egregious and irrelevant politicisation of this very sad occurrence quite unsavoury.

Oh dear – poor you!
Sorry to trample upon your sensibilities but I just happen to find the death of an innocent man at the hands of our own police force, rather hard to dismiss.
So rather than indulge in faux handwringing and saying “how awful it all is but it’s no ones fault really” – I prefer to say what I think.

Sorry if that’s ‘inconvenient’ for your political sensibilities; but you seem to be confusing me with someone who actually gives a damn about what you consider to be acceptable in polite company.

As for ‘politicizing’ the debate – who do you think gave the police these new powers to shove people around in the street with impunity?

That’s right – this corrupt Labour Government.

I’m not going too fast for you am I?

If the government and police had had their way the footage would have been confiscated and possession and distribution of the clip would have the person who took it in jail by now.

Not only do New Labour regard the police as their own private militia, they wish to have them beyond scrutiny.

Cipriano:

Hear Hear!

That about sums Mike up nicely – but you could say that about anyone still prepared to support a Corrupt Political Party like Labour.

As Corporal Jones used to say – “They don’t like it up ‘em”

Mike – this dismissive reference to Dr Kelly, who killed himself because the security services were about to give him a fearsome going over, just shows what an authoritarian wanker you seem to be.

I shouldn’t have brought that up, bu he killed himself after the liberal democrat on the foreign affairs select committee blew his cover as the source of Susan Watts’ newsnight report, after he has promised that he was not, thus he knew he would exposed within a matter of hours or days, and he would lose his job and reputation. That is what the inquiry concluded and was clear from the evidence.

Hysteria surrounds these things.

Hysteria surrounds these things.

NO!

LIES and COVER UPS surround these things.

Yes, the Tomlinson affair needs a proper inquiry

I doubt there will be any inquiry as such. There will be the inquest. Then lots of people complaining that the inquest was a white wash for not annoucing that the officer who over did the pushing was guilty of murder, etc.

Hey Shatterface – haven’t seen you around on Cif lately – did they ban you too? :o)

Mike – on Dr Kelly, he’d already been exposed and knew this would be in the public domain, and he’d already established that he wouldn’t lose his redundancy and pension entitlements, so it wasn’t because of that. It was because he faced interrogation by a certain committee, an interrogation which I, as an ex-public servant, have faced myself, and having done so I can well believe that someone might have killed themselves rather than do so.

The blame for this death lies firmly with the trouble makers , the police have treate done alot worse when I’ve been pissed . its only wankers like you lot that faint at the sigh to of rough treatment and will do anything to attack the Police .

If he died from that he was sick and the protesters killed him off

“Hey Shatterface – haven’t seen you around on Cif lately – did they ban you too? :o)”

This explains rather a lot – not least the hysteria, the non sequiturs and the rabidity. I really think this thread could do with more sober discussion, and less of the above. But I fear that may be asking too much. A guy has died here, for goodness sake. Just leave the attitude at the door.

Cipriano, I don’t want to debate this here, but you’re wrong. He’d been given a final warning on the condition that he had told the whole truth about his leaks and nothing more would come out, and he would go to the foreign affairs commitee to sort out the mess. However Gilligan tipped off certain individuals on the commitee to put it to him that he was the source of Susan Watts’ report. When that happened Kelly knew the game was up and this would come out in days, exposing that he had lied this losing everything. That’s what sent him over the edge. That’s what the inquiry found to be the case.

What had happened was obvious to me very early on but people talked shit about it for months.

MoreMediaNonsense’s post at 11:21 pm gets the post of the thread award.

Goodnite.

Silent Hunter, no I’m not banned from CiF, I just don’t have time to read the vast number of messages that CiF publishes and I might as well pop in here from time to time and poke New Labour apologists with a stick.

I know there are still a few Leftish posters here but whatever the original motivation of the mods most of the current posts would not be out of place among the far-Right.

Ben:

Get off your high horse, drink your milk and stop hiding behind platitudes because we don’t agree with you.

Yeah! A guy has died! That’s precisely why we need ‘attitude’ rather than the mealy mouthed, lobotomized view from the Labour homeland securities force.

It might be apposite to remind you of what the author of this article states –
“…I am sorry, but this is the most awful thing…”

He’s right!

A shame then that you seek to defend the indefensible.

Shatterface:

Yup – couldn’t agree more.

If you get a moment, we’d love to see you over at Political News Blogs

Here’s the link – http://politicalnewsblogs.com/

I’m not going to get into a slanging match with you, Hunter. Your commentary speaks for itself.

You may consider it a platitude to give this issue the consideration it deserves without loading agendas the size of small planets onto it, but I do not agree.

I am not quite sure what it is you think I am defending. Good night.

The most alarming thing about this incident is the attitude of Mike and AJ2p who I assume are associated with, if not employed by the Met police in some way.

But then the Met have form don’t they? After Jean Charles de Menezes was shot the police conferred and fixed their story, (and were later found by the inquest to have lied about this) and then spun a number of lies about Jean Charles death to put themselves in the clear. Fortunately the inquest jury was not convinced that all the Met police are honest upstanding citizens who would never tell a lie.

Not the least disgraceful aspect was the way the barrister defending Sir Iain Blair tried to rubbish Jean Charles reputation afterwards. I see this has already started with Mike referring to the dead man as “an old drunk” – he was 47. And maybe as a Londoner, drunk or not, he took exception to being ordered about by the police when making his way home.

Oh dear, big mistake, once the police take it into their heads to clear an area, however law abiding you may be you can expected to be laid about with a baton if you do not jump to attention at once. Silly Me.

exactly Mrs. Ben.

Oh, brother! The guy was pushed. And not a particularly violent push. He fell, sat up, and was talking and motioning with his hands. He then got up and continued to walk on his way until he collapsed and allegedly died from a heart attack. To claim it is manslaughter because he subsequently had a heart attack is bullshit.

“…I’m not going to get into a slanging match with you, Hunter…”

Oh Good.

“… Your commentary speaks for itself…”

Hang on? I thought you just said……..LOL

Honestly…..Labour Supporters…..cuh!…….You just can’t trust them. LOL

“..I am not quite sure what it is you think I am defending…”

No; I don’t think you actually know what you’re defending.

kmag:

“..And not a particularly violent push…”

Oh really?

Have you watched the video?

A particularly BIG bloke are you Kmag?

So that push was what – a gentle nudge?…..a friendly tap on the shoulder to move on?
Some bon hommi on the part of men dressed in riot gear wielding shields, batons and dogs?

Get real!

In light of this, I wonder if that story about the demonstrators throwing bottles at the paramedics was true.

have you ever served on a Jury?

do you remember discussing the trial with your other 11 jurors?

was there ever a time when you thought “hang on, have we been sitting thru the same trial?” as some irrational nonsense leaves the mouth of a fellow juror? a like moment from the Twilight Zone

this video is much like that

we can all view it, even in slow motion, we can see the policeman attack someone from BEHIND

hit him from behind

which causes him to fall

yet some here are almost arguing “nah, nothing happened, storm in a tea cup, move along” etc

which given the fact that this individual died a few minutes later has great bearing on the issue

what is more astonishing, is that people wish to obfuscate on the video, when it is all there to see

such irrationality is hard to credit, when the evidence is staring them in face, I only hope that they don’t serve on too many juries.

Correct, oh ball-less one. It would be nothing but a minor battery if it was an illegal touching, which it was not. Claiming it is manslaughter — you must be on drugs.

Have you ever served on a Jury?

Have you ever tried/defended a criminal case in front of a Jury?

Have you ever tried/defended a criminal battery? assault? assault with/GBI? involuntary manslaughter? voluntary manslaughter? second degree murder?

If not, shut up.

Well said, More Media Nonsense.

Sick Mike –

Take off the blinkers and look at the video. It wasn’t a “shove”. It was full on unannounced charge from behind against the torso of a man with his hand in his pockets. The potential consequences of such an action are clear to any reasonable person.

According to your theory of law a disabled person could be charged in a similar manner and the police would be fully justified.

It’s clear this Police officer went way over the top. The stress of the occasion including the threats to his own person from violent anarchists might have got to him. But that is mitigation not proof of innocence.

I see “Mike” is making identical posts over at comment is free under the name (and you’ll laugh) Martin Smith!

Still at least he is consistant unlike our David who just a few days ago was congratulating the Met for protecting kindergardens.

Do you lot ever get tired of being wrong?

A question; if I struck a Met police officer on the legs with a baton & then shoved him from behind so forcefully that he literally flew to the ground, & then, not 10 mins later, that same Met Police officer suffered a heart attack & died .. what do you think would happen to me?

Now! Now! We are getting carried away with what we think we saw in moving images. I listened to the BBC news this morning and we can’t rule out the possibility that these are actors simulating an event or something put together by CGI and Dreamworks.

I am guided by the BBC news description that talks about this video in which it “appears” a policeman has pushed over this unfortunate man. The use of the modifier “appears” must indicate that the BBC can’t be certain that any of this really happened.

BBC Bollocks!

Hysteria surrounds these things.

NO!

LIES and COVER UPS surround these things.

Hysterical! Hunter, you are a Grade A Internet Nutter.

The autopsy found no bruises or marks on the man.

Ah, that confirms the BBC view that it just appears he was knocked to the ground.

How does a slighly overweight man get pushed to the ground, puts his hands out to break his fall on a pavement NOT have abrasions to the hands and knee-caps? Its impossible!

They were looking for evidence of a beating. If you do a post mortem on someone who appears to collapse on the streets from a heart attack you probably don’t look for anything else.

It wasn’t too long ago that the police were castigated for appearing to run from ‘anti-war’ protesters. They can’t win it seems.

As for the ‘hands in his pocket’ aspect, we have the benefit of hindsight there. We know that there was nothing sinister it. To a policeman at the time, though, this could have suggested that he had a weapon.

It’s terrible that he died. On this video, though, we need perspective. Is this video *really* “the most awful thing”?

He is dead Chas, leaving a widow and son.
You don’t get much more awful than that

For years we’ve seen plod videoing protesters etc etc. Now they will be brought to book on this evidence. Its clearly assault, the guy died within minutes so of course the question of manslaughter will arise. There are definitely thuggish elements in the police. Look at their behaviour during the Countryside Alliance march. I saw police there hammering into women without a care in the world. Of course now they will close ranks and do their best to slow and cloud everything down. We are paying these thugs and they have to be answerable to us. Those responsible have NO place in the force and should be sacked and stand a proper trial like the rest of us

“He is dead Chas, leaving a widow and son.
You don’t get much more awful than that”

I agree. I was talking about the video, not the death.

“Is this video *really* “the most awful thing”?”

No. Nor was the Rodney King video, once you’d heard the other side of the story…

“The police don’t have the right to beat people up you know.”

There is the context. We don’t know what those Police had been facing earlier. They may have just come from being goaded by a more aggressive mob and were in no mood for a chit chat. I must say that I don’t think the Police action can be excused as it clearly was unnecessary, but I don’t consider what they did as “beating somebody up” either. However, this will play very badly for the reputation of the Police. For example ,people might compare this behaviour, that is the Police happy to be togged up in riot gear ,pushng innocent people about, with their complete inaction when faced with the monotonous regularity of drunken violence and civil disorder that blights most English town centres on a Friday or Saturday night.

>>> Certainly throws a different light on some of the horribly reactionary stuff on a recent thread on this topic.

Indeed. Harrys Place got bitch-slapped by reality.

But the reactionaries here will carry on defending state violence and state terrorism.

“For example ,people might compare this behaviour, that is the Police happy to be togged up in riot gear ,pushng innocent people about, with their complete inaction when faced with the monotonous regularity of drunken violence and civil disorder that blights most English town centres on a Friday or Saturday night.”

Indeed. Or the illegal occupation of a bridge by Tamils protesting about issues in another country only yesterday, when the police were very ‘hands off’, despite the enormous disruption to business…

As for the ‘hands in his pocket’ aspect, we have the benefit of hindsight there. We know that there was nothing sinister it. To a policeman at the time, though, this could have suggested that he had a weapon.

That is the most extraordinary garbage.

Apart from anything else, if the policeman had really thought he had a weapon, he wouldn’t have knocked him over. He’d have grabbed hold of him and tried to disarm him.

Chas Newkey-Burden, why are you so desperate to defend the police from legitimate criticism that you’re prepared to just invent any old rubbish and put it forward as an excuse?

JuliaM, Queen of the Red Herring.

I wonder if these people will get justice?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-family-police-assault

I doubt it.

“Harrys Place got bitch-slapped by reality.”

What a charming turn of phrase. How very revealing.

Hey wake up rintintin you old fart it’s 2009.

Still at least he is consistant unlike our David who just a few days ago was congratulating the Met for protecting kindergardens.

Do you lot ever get tired of being wrong?

Moron. You can congratulate the police for protecting kindergardens and still believe they shouldn’t assault innocent members of the public. This doesn’t mean the police are now Bad, not Good like before.

David T, well done for posting this – there were a lot of reactionary comments when it was first announced a man had died, and it’s bizarre that they’re continuing.

>>> There is the context. We don’t know what those Police had been facing earlier. They may have just come from being goaded by a more aggressive mob and were in no mood for a chit chat. I must say that I don’t think the Police action can be excused as it clearly was unnecessary, but I don’t consider what they did as “beating somebody up” either. However, this will play very badly for the reputation of the Police.

Yes it’s very bad PR for our beloved bobbies on the beat. How very inconsiderate of Mr Tomlinson.

Have you seen this?

http://www.lettersfromatory.com/2009/04/08/g20-protest-death-was-not-as-simple-as-the-left-portray/

I don’t agree with it all, by the way, just interested in people’s views on what is said.

Tagmuzlsx says: “Ian Tomlinson got what he deserved. If his heart hadn’t exploded then, it would have exploded later that evening while he was fucking (or perhaps hitting) his wife, or arguing with his son, or annoying passers by the next day by hawking his papers.”

This is a joke right?

Dear Metropolitan Police

Thank you for doing a wonderful job protecting kindergartens. Sorry that idiot Tomlinson got in your way but I still think you are Good with a capital G!

Yours simperingly

Wardytron

K Ronstadt you appear to be against state violence but are happy to use language that re-enforces misogyny and violence against women.

Also, don’t call me things unless your prepared to say to my face.

What is a “reactionary” comment on this issue Wardytron ? I thought it was in fact rather liberal a) not to prejudge people accused of assault and perhaps manslaughter until all the facts are known and b) not to generalise from the actions of one member of a group to the whole group.

Unless you mean it is liberal to always prejudge police actions and assume the worst of all of “the pigs”. That can’t be right, surely ?

Piss off, Ronstadt. The point is they are neither Good nor Bad, as they’re made up of individuals. Similarly, when you say “Harrys Place got bitch-slapped by reality”, you’re failing to understand that it also consists of individuals, some of whom eg you are scum, and some of whom aren’t.

What is a “reactionary” comment on this issue Wardytron ?

Anything Mike says.

Things like this have happened for decades, probably since the inception of the police. But usually the only witnesses are the police and those associated with the victim, who can usually be dismissed as being prejudiced against the police. It is extremely rare – is this the first time? – to get clear filmed evidence of a serious unprovoked attack by a police officer against an obviously inoffensive person. Those who try to defend police actions by saying that Mr Tomlinson was being ‘provocative’ by walking too slowly or ‘just shouldn’t have been there’ are scraping the bottom of the barrel and such excuses are as hilarious as they are offensive. Even the in the Daily Mail nearly 100% of the comments are critical of the police, which must be a first.

Perhaps one positive thing to come of this is that the next time a person alleges that they were assaulted by a police officer, people won’t automatically dismiss it as a fabrication.

Things like this have happened for decades, probably since the inception of the police. But usually the only witnesses are the police and those associated with the victim, who can usually be dismissed as being prejudiced against the police. It is extremely rare – is this the first time? – to get clear filmed evidence of a serious unprovoked attack by a police officer against an obviously inoffensive person. Those who try to defend police actions by saying that Mr Tomlinson was being ‘provocative’ by walking too slowly or ‘just shouldn’t have been there’ are scraping the bottom of the barrel and such excuses are as hilarious as they are offensive. Even the in the Daily Mail nearly 100% of the comments are critical of the police, which must be a first.

Perhaps one positive thing to come of this is that the next time a person alleges that they were assaulted by a police officer, people won’t automatically dismiss it as a fabrication.

Yes indeed Wardy, those Kindergardens could only be saved from the evil anarchists (who we all know have a long record of attacking toddlers) by killing a passer by.

You do seem like a very angry man this morning Wardy, always bad when the Trots are proved right yet again.

the BBC’s coverage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7989027.stm

This doesn’t mean the police are now Bad, not Good like before

Individual officers may be ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I suspect the out and out power crazed nutters, the sort of people who join the police in order to push people around, are probably quite rare. What has always been concerning is the extent to which ‘ordinary’ officers have tolerated problematic comrades, whether in the past they were racists or were excessively violent. The police have a real opportunity here, to show that they will deal firmly with one of their own that oversteps the line. That could do them good. But the officers who were witnesses to the assault need to step forward to identify the officer responsible. This is going to be a significant test for the new commissioner. let’s see if he is up to the job.

>>> K Ronstadt you appear to be against state violence but are happy to use language that re-enforces misogyny and violence against women.

You pompous clown.

http://www.bitchslapmovie.com/

Yes indeed Wardy, those Kindergardens could only be saved from the evil anarchists (who we all know have a long record of attacking toddlers) by killing a passer by.

This doesn’t really mean anything, does it. It’s not even an attempt to parody anything I’ve said, it’s just some words you’ve put together.

XOfTheX – no doubt if this comes to court the policemans defence will try to say that he was “moving on” an obstructive person with “reasonable force” as they are I think allowed to. You prejudge the case by going on about “scraping the barrel”.

Does anyone legally minded here know what force the police can legally use in these circumstances ? Don’t forget they are not in the same legal situation as your average Joe who cannot legally direct and move people about on the street.

I personally hope this comes to trial but as I don’t know the detail of the law re police force in these circumstances I can’t say if it will.

>>> This is a joke right?

Sadly, no. Power worshippers here generally take sides against the victim when the perp is the State.

If you get killed by the police, the IDF, the USAF etc. then you must – by definition – have been doing something wrong at the time because the State apparatus is a force for Good.

When these reactionaries get bitch-slapped by reality in the form of a video, independent witnesses etc. they simply resort to even more bizarre excuses for State violence.

Homercles:

“..Hysterical! Hunter, you are a Grade A Internet Nutter…”

Is that it?

That’s your sum total of a come back is it?

Calling names and then running away. LOL

How about arguing the point or, heavenforfend, making one of your own – perhaps your Mum could help you there.

And your point would be…….? :o)

BTW – presumably your criteria for “Grade A Internet Nutter” doesn’t encompass the barely literate posting of Tagmuslsx.

So perhaps I should rephrase my earlier question to you……

What is the point of you?

Does anyone legally minded here know what force the police can legally use in these circumstances ?

I have no idea, I’m afraid, but if I was on the jury and the defence was “my client used reasonable force, as he is entitled to do” I’d be unlikely to go “Ah, well he’s definitely innocent then.”

You make a very good point about the reflexive trust for the police and the risk of this being damaged. I fear you are right about this. The police need to get their house in order if they are to retain this trust.

I have made my little contribution to this debate here.

XOfTheX – no doubt if this comes to court the policemans defence will try to say that he was “moving on” an obstructive person with “reasonable force” as they are I think allowed to

Yes well, violent thugs often use self defence as an excuse. The video is pretty damning, though isn’t enough to convict on.

You prejudge the case by going on about “scraping the barrel”

So what do you think those concocting excuses for this officer are doing?

Does anyone legally minded here know what force the police can legally use in these circumstances ? Don’t forget they are not in the same legal situation as your average Joe who cannot legally direct and move people about on the street

Reasonable force, which is dependent on the circumstances. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which hitting someone with a baton from behind to move them on would be considered reasonable.

The police have a real opportunity here, to show that they will deal firmly with one of their own that oversteps the line.

This in itself is to prejudge what happened and to accept that this officer acted on his own and was not obeying an order from his superior to hit Mr Tomlinson. What is clear is that something “horrendous” did happen but we must wait for the inquiry (undertaken by “the forces of state power” of course but there you go) to report before we place the full blame anywhere.

Wasn’t the Met’s defence of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes that he was behaving in a way which could be seen as suspicious? Hasn’t the same defence been used in other cases where the police have killed a man?

It seems to be the same defence they always trot out as a knee jerk reaction while they try to fix a common story between the police present? It seems that merely walking home from work, via a demonstration area, with your hands in your pockets, is now defined as suspicious.

I suppose it is inevitable as they can no longer plant evidence, they have to claim suspicious behaviour as a justification. This apparently extends to being an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time.

violent thugs often use self defence as an excuse.

Civilians aren’t allowed to use force in the streets – the police are. Eg they can use batons on people. This is where the legal issues come in.

Reasonable force, which is dependent on the circumstances. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which hitting someone with a baton from behind to move them on would be considered reasonable.

Well indeed – but we need to know all the circumstances here and what the police defence is. That’s why we need to wait for the IPCC report, inquest and perhaps trial.

So, now that everyone here @HP have agreed:

1)the policeman who shoved Mr Tomlinson used reasonable, not excessive force

2)al-Guardian, Auntie and the Indy are involved in a conspiracy of silence surrounding the real killers of PC Keith Blakelock

3)Yasmin A-B will blame it on institutionalised anti-Ismaili racism

It is hard to see this as anything other than unprovoked assault, ending in a manslaughter of an innocent man.

This in itself is to prejudge what happened and to accept that this officer acted on his own and was not obeying an order from his superior to hit Mr Tomlinson

Jeez, if you are going to take that attitude then any comment is ‘prejudging’ the issue, including this thread on HP. And prejudiging the issue isn’t something that HP is shy of doing when the alleged miscreant isn’t an agent of the state.

And I don’t see why obeying an order let’s the officer would let the officer off the hook.

Jeez, if you are going to take that attitude then any comment is ‘prejudging’ the issue

Indeed (see above) however, some people are trying now to make out that this case with its clear video evidence should be used to justify other cases in future are they not?

And I don’t see why obeying an order let’s the officer would let the officer off the hook.

Well that is quite clearly not what I am saying is it now? It is you who seemingly want to accept that this officer is the sole person to blame whilst I am saying there may be others who also must take their share of the guilt for this death.

I’m not sure it’s correct to say that the police are unlucky to have killed someone. It is well known that some policemen are not averse to giving a baton to the back of the head – one of my mates got one when he was sitting down once. Anyone on the receiving end of any kind of violent force has a non-zero chance of dying because of it, even when they are middle class student protestors, so it might be better to say that they are lucky that they kill so few people.

Having said all that, this is a police force which recently has shot an unarmed and innocent man several times in the back of the head without a single person, system or procedure being held responsible or changed, so I reckon the officer who did this will likely get off scot free.

Anyone on the receiving end of any kind of violent force has a non-zero chance of dying because of it

Take away Mr Tomlinson’s heart condition and the problem here is (what is so shocking) is that hitting an obviously slightly dazed person on the back of the legs in a hard concrete environment is more than the use of violent force. It is absolutely irresponsible.

KRonstadt,

hypocrite, PC Warrior,mysoginist,tosser,coward,

shouldn’t you be at school?..(oh I forgot it’s the holdays)

Chas, you have linked to some of the most inane drivel I have read on this topic:

1. The video said Ian Tomlinson was “attempting to get home from work” – oh, really? So he just happened to be wearing plain clothes and accidentally found himself in front of a police cordon that was clearing the area of protestors during a mass gathering around the G20 summit? Please, don’t insult our intelligence. This was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to portray Ian as an innocent bystander when in reality he was very much part of the protest.

He was in plain clothes because he wore plain clothes to work. And what difference does it make if he’s an “innocent bystander” or an innocent protester. He would be innocent and the push from the policeman would be unjustified either way. But, returning to the original point made by the writer, there is absolutely nothing to justify the statement “very much part of the protest” apart from his casual clothing. Not exactly logical and refuted by his family and the evidence of the video (he’s not exactly waving slogans around, dressed like an anarchist or chucking bricks through bank windows).

The video said Ian was “walking away from them” – this is outright deceit, in my opinion. Yes, he was physically facing the opposite direction but if you watch the video carefully you will see that he is deliberately antagonising the police by walking slowly right in front of them as the cordon tries to move people down the street. He was clearly antagonising them with his hands nonchallantly in his pockets, wandering around just a few steps ahead of them. I’m also tempted to use the word ‘provocation’, such was his obvious willingness and intention to disrupt the police’s movements. Notice that everyone else was at least 20 yards ahead of him because it was obvious that the police wanted people to stay well in front of them as they moved the protestors away from this area. The police left him on the ground because they could see perfectly well what he was doing to their efforts to move people on and they were having none of his antics. Do not paint Ian as an innocent bystander – he was exactly where he wanted to be, blocking the police and antagonising them.

Oh, the antagonism of a man who puts his hands in his pockets and walks slowly. Definitely deserves a push. How about another explanation which accords somewhat better with established facts (like Tomlinson was not protesting and was on his way home from work.)

So a rather more likely explanation would be that he was not a protester, didn’t want to get mixed up with the anarchists and therefore decided that the safer place to be would be near the police. He was an innocent man who went to work that day and found himself trapped in a kettle as he tried to go home. That is not his fault.

The video said that “witnesses say him dazed and stumbling along the road before he collapsed” – this may be true, but in the seconds before a heart attack you can hardly blame this on the police. He was sitting down, injured and unharmed, on the video footage and appears to get up with the help of another protestor and then walk away.

No. This is completely dishonest. The video does not show him walk away, it ends with him standing up. It shows him standing up with the assistance of a protester and then eyewitness accounts suggest that shortly after that he was walking around dazed. Why did he spend so long on the ground if everything was so hunky dory? And why did he need the help of a protester to get back up again?

And we can certainly blame the dazed state and even the heart-attack on the police if, as the evidence seems to suggest at the moment, he was just on his way home when a policeman pushed him over causing a shock which sent him into a heart-attack.

seeing as the footage shows Ian antagonising the police I don’t think “brutality” is really appropriate.

Police brutality is normally defined as when the police use excessive force, regardless of any antagonistic behaviour, so this makes no sense.

The eyewitness account of Anna Braithwaite suggests that this footage actually missed the beginning of Ian’s contact with the police, which may have been going for a minute or so before the video footage began. She described an officer picking Ian up off the floor, having previously pushed him over, only for him to be thrown down again. If this is true, it lends credence to both our arguments. You will say that this is more evidence of police brutality and an ‘over the top’ reaction, whereas I would say that it just shows how determined Ian was to antagonise and irritate the police officers by repeatedly interfering with their attempts to move him and other protestors away from this area and he was never going to get away with it – and why should he. When the police tell you to move, you move – no questions asked, no second chances need to be given.

God this is unpleasant stuff. He had his hands in his pockets – how on earth can physical force be justified against a man who clearly presented no physical threat to anybody. If he was deliberately obstructing the police there are laws to deal with that. He could have been arrested and removed.

I’ve even read several comparisons to the Jean Charles De Menezes case, which is utterly disgusting. To compare a botched anti-terrorism operation to a protestor who was doing everything in their power to infuriate the police during a mass protest is outrageous and totally counter-productive.

Certainly there are many important differences between an innocent being shot several times as he sits on the tube and an innocent man being pushed over, possibly leading to him having a fatal heart-attack.

But no. If he was doing “everything in his power to infuriate the police” he would not have been walking away (albeit slowly) with his hands in his pockets. “Everything in his power” would include violence, turning around and shouting/swearing at the officers, physically impeding their advance and many other things. The video shows his walking (slowly) away from police. How is this “everything in his power”?

On the issue of perspective, I will leave you with this footage of what the police had to deal with at the G20. The police were under attack from a large number of protestors at the G20, so let us not forget in amongst all this clammering for ‘the police to be held to account’ that they have an unbelievably difficult job and the last thing they need to someone trying to antagonise them even further.

I’m sure it’s the last thing they need. But it’s also what they’re paid and trained to handle without resorting to violence. If Tomlinson was actively getting in the way of a police operation he should have been arrested, charged and tried.

But I have a question for those who want to defend the behaviour of this policeman and the ones who stood by as he assaulted a member of the public: why, if the police acted so well in this, did they at first claim that protesters tried to stop Tomlinson getting proper medical treatment?

Gsirrah, I started to respond to that post, but there’s that many points to counter that it would’ve taken all day. I would just like to highlight this statement though, for anyone who thinks the Tories are going to be any better on civil liberties:

When the police tell you to move, you move – no questions asked, no second chances need to be given.

This is still the mindset of the Tories.

Incidentally, if there are few comparisons with the de Menezes case, there is at least one so far – the police lying through their teeth in their initial reaction.

Short Order Cook. Absolutely right.

However, the thing about that post is (apart from the unpleasantness) it hangs on two ridiculous assumptions:
1) Ian Tomlinson was a protester – because he was wearing “plain clothes.”
2) Ian Tomlinson deserved a shove because he was doing “everything in his power” to provoke the police – the ‘evidence’ for this being that he was walking slowly away from the police.

Also, even assuming we agree that when the police tell you to move, you move – no questions asked, no second chances need to be given, in the event that you don’t move, they still don’t assault you.

That stuff from Letters From a Tory is pretty rank. Every bit as disgusting as the political spin the anarchists are trying to put on this. And completely at variance to what is in the video.

It is actually quite distressing that people can’t treat this as an individual occurrence with the seriousness that it deserves rather than using it as a means to an end, whether that be minimising to defend the police, or hijacking to make a political point about why we should let scum run around smashing things up because it’s political, innit?

Letters From a Tory should hang his head in shame.

I know he’s a jailbird, Savage, he’s down in the cells now! We’re holding him on a charge of being caught in possession of curly black hair and thick lips!

Funnily, Graham, I thought of similar line from an actual Met arrest about ten years ago – “he was sucking his teeth at me”. Yes, and having had that done to me, it is not innocuous and the equivalent of my giving repeated Viking salutes whilst hissing.

As for drunks, I have dealt with them both on the streets of Leith and hospital environments, and brief video footage sans soundtrack does not do justice the the sudden menace they can present. If Tomlinson were a chronic alcoholic, he may have imbued far more alcohol than you or I would require to get into a similar state.

As for the video, we do need to be circumspect. My impression was that this was a fractious environment in which Tomlinson was noticeably engaged in some form of conversation with officers who, as discussed on Harry’s Place, have been under sustained pressure from increasingly violent street-protests.

Maybe the baton to the back of the legs, not obvious a soft target like the head or small of back, is a noted method of ‘encouragement’. Maybe Tomlinson had previously remonstrated with Police. Maybe the officer in question is guilty of gross-misconduct at the very least, and should be investigated.

Let’s wait and see.

Well Alec I am sure I will be accused of all sorts of “Playing the prole card” gibberish but one of the reasons I feel so strongly about this sort of thing is that I come from a background where it was absolutely expected that should you fall foul of the police on a bad day you would dissapear into the local cop shop for a kicking, where the police could stop you on any pretext (generally assumed to be them looking for an opportunity for overtime) and where I have actually seen brutality against (even) minors which went totally unpunished as far as I am aware.

Yet over the past few years it seemed to me the Met (in conjunction with the Mayor – political point emerging) had made vast improvements in this area and this is why it is so shocking to see this casual act of brutality against an innocent bystander.

A few very odd comments here from those determined to defend the police even if that means just disregarding the utterly obvious.

It must be right to be cautious in rushing to judgment, as there is much that is still not known or at least not in the public domain. Thus pending the inquest no-one can be sure of the extent of any causative link between the incident in the video and the subsequent death. Likewise, details of what occurred prior to the incident in the video are uncertain.

But surely in any event, the video depicts an act of outrageous and unacceptable police behaviour. And the police need to act quickly, and not hide behind the IPCC investigation. The police will have cheapened themselves and lost the respect of many in London if that officer is still in post in a month’s trime.

Anybody know if Boris has actually even commented on this by the way?

Why is it that whenever I arrive at a topic where there are already 150+ posts and I scroll to the bottom I find Graham arguing about class but denying he is obsessed with class.

Boris is tied up today announcing the abolition of Rise.

It wasn’t too long ago that the police were castigated for appearing to run from ‘anti-war’ protesters. They can’t win it seems.

Yes indeed. You won’t see me turn completely around and use the worst case scenario spin about this incident. It’s a messy job and sometimes mistakes are made.

Yes everybody is against pushing! But if he wasn’t so pissed he probably would have stumbled and moved on. If it was such a terrible act of police brutality I think there would have been a little more shock from the protesters standing around.

And yes, the police officer should have owned up to having pushed him over, but I suspect he strongly feared that people would go completely nuts and blame him for the man’s death. Hmmm. I wonder if he was right about that?

I urge people to read the Guardian message board to see how this is being exploited to fit the most extreme propaganda one could imagine. Anyone would think this officer had taken the guy into a side street and put a bullet in the back of his head. It’s utterly absurd.

Well, yes, Graham. However, given that the officers didn’t then rush Tomlinson and beat him when on the ground, or manhandled him away – and that this appears to be one instance out of a contained events – suggests that the advances continue to be made.

Whatever happened should be investigated and, if culpability found, disciplinary and/or legal proceeding enacted.

Meanwhile, have a gander at this thread. It’s going to be fun comparing howls of indignation there to the approval here of the officers in question being broadcast across the mediasphere.

There are a lot of uninformed comments flying about this morning about what may or may not have caused his heart attack.

Heart attacks are caused by pre-existing disease in the heart arteries. I recall that shortly after his death, one of his friends was quoted saying something to the effect that “years of smoking and drinking had finally caught up with him”. No one with normal coronary anatomy would experience a heart attack after being pushed to the floor.

His death from a heart attack followed him being pushed (whilst intoxicated), but not necessarily due to him being pushed.

Post hoc, sed non propter hoc (after the event, but not due to the event).

Heart attacks are caused by pre-existing disease in the heart arteries. I recall that shortly after his death, one of his friends was quoted saying something to the effect that “years of smoking and drinking had finally caught up with him”. No one with normal coronary anatomy would experience a heart attack after being pushed to the floor.

I agree causation has by no means been demonstrated, and indeed said so above.

However English law has a concept known informally as the “egg-shell skull” rule. This states that a person has to “take his victim as he finds him”. So if you bonk someone over the head with a blow that would do no harm to most people but actually fractures your victim’s skull because it is unusually thin, you are responsible.

If the assault brought on the heart attack, even if this could only have happened to a small minority of people with advanced heart disease, then that ought to be sufficient causation to warrant a manslaughter charge (if all the other ingredients of that offence are present) under English law.

If the assault brought on the heart attack, even if this could only have happened to a small minority of people with advanced heart disease, then that ought to be sufficient causation to warrant a manslaughter charge (if all the other ingredients of that offence are present) under English law.

Not always as the police are allowed to use reasonable force under some circumstances and in using that on an individual cannot be expected to know the full details of a person’s individual health weaknessses. The alternative is not allowing the police to use any force at all ever.

Obviously it the circumstances and reasonablity of the action here that are the issue in law.

I note no police officer attempted to help him to his feet.

Subsequently, following Mr Tomlinson’s collapse others called for help and did provide First Aid.

Many years ago a school friend’s (highly respectable) father on his way home from a civil service post in central London was seized and thrown into the road by police when he accidently strayed into the fringes of a CND rally.

There are people in all walks of life who should not be in their employment.

If the assault brought on the heart attack then causation is established for legal purposes. As I said, there are plenty of other ingredients that would have to be proved before a manslaughter prosecution could succeed and I suspect that the CPS would consider very carefully whether there is evidence of a sufficient level of negligence or recklessness for an involuntary manslaughter charge to stick.

I’d be very surprised if the defence claimed that only reasonable force was used, since it appears from the video that there was no reason to use any force at all.

I find Graham arguing about class but denying he is obsessed with class.

You haven’t and you don’t (but as I said, there would be all osrts of gibberish after I mentioned it….)

Well, yes, Graham. However, given that the officers didn’t then rush Tomlinson and beat him when on the ground, or manhandled him away – and that this appears to be one instance out of a contained events – suggests that the advances continue to be made.

I don’t doubt it – but there is a rather large gap between what enlightened liberals perceive on leftish websites and what the public see when a bystander is killed by police at a demo.

ChrisC:

Smith v Leech Brain & Co” was a famous case in British law that gave rise to the “thin skull rule”. The man was an employee of a foundry who died of cancer after some molten metal splashed him on the lip, causing severe burning to a location where some pre-cancerous cells were situated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

The fundamentals were that while the severity of the harm suffered by Smith was unusual, the probability of a burning accident was.

Limiting the use of force to what is necessary for public safety is basic police training and you’d think the potential of encountering a “thin skull” would be part of this training.

Over-reaction seems to be no small problem with law enforcement officers. At the moment, Canada’s federal law enforcement agent, the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy, are going through an inquest into the taser death of a Polish man at Vancouver’s airport. What’s coming out, is that the four policemen clearly used excessive force, including administering not one, but six shocks to the man, who was suffering some sort of panic attack after flying to meet his mother and being left wandering for 10 hours.

Well, Graham, if we’re talking about “the public”, I do suspect it’ll come down on the officers’ side. Terrible as the footage was, it wasn’t Red Riding.

The high noise value of enlightened Liberals (I’m not intentionally doing a Morgoth with the capitalization) and screeching puritans (as exemplified by the manikins of C.i.F.), I have a feeling that if you stopped someone on Anywhere Street, their impression of Leftwing/protest politics will be rioting numpties, slightly over-the-top fascination with foreign dictators and unsavoury Jew-obsessions.

I mean, if many self-proclaimed socialists can’t grasp the difference betwixt them and the Chartists, why should “the public”?

I have a feeling that if you stopped someone on Anywhere Street, their impression of Leftwing/protest politics will be rioting numpties, slightly over-the-top fascination with foreign dictators and unsavoury Jew-obsessions.

Be careful. this man was more Jade Goody than Swampy (and you do not need to have a good impression of clown girl in order to distrust the cops as well…)

Heart attacks are caused by pre-existing disease in the heart arteries.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, yes, but a correctly-timed blow to the chest can cause arrhythmia leading to cardiac arrest in a perfectly healthy individual.

It wasn’t my intention to suggest he was involved; rather that blame for the events may be defected from the officers and onto the protest/riot organizers. However, I do think much will be made of his potentially having been an aggressive drunk.

Witness statements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTCwQt3zBq8

Warning: may contain middle class students

I do think much will be made of his potentially having been an aggressive drunk.

Well to a large minority of commenters on this site (when they allow that the working-class exist) anyone selling papers in a Millwall shirt MUST have been an aggressive drunk!

A old school mate of mine who went into the Po-Po was one of the back up coppers for the Riccin raid. The officer in charge basically briefed them along the lines that the house was stuffed with AKs and grenades, the locals would riot as soon as they arrived and force above and beyond was ‘not frowned upon. This wasn’t ‘be prepared’, rather ‘this is how it is’

A friend of mine forgot her ID card for her student travel pass on the tube. Whilst talking to the inspector, a under-cover Po-Po rocks up and demanded her address whilst calling her a ‘Skank’. When she demurred, mostly from shock, he forced her against the wall and sexually threatened her. After an official complaint, where passagers and the inspector were witnesses against the officer, he was transfered to Reading, rumoured to have been raised up to CID.

I could never be Po-Po because it is one of the toughest jobs in our community, to do at all, let alone well. However, the very nature of the police as a tool of public order, an investigative body and the holders of the monopoly of violence creates conflicts that both the training nor the management seems to deal with.

Wa-haha, Sy!

Graham, I do think he was seriously inebriated (and, as an alcoholic, may have imbibed… not imbued, as I said above… large quantities) and, based on personal experience, know irrational and aggressive behaviour is a possibility.

This doesn’t mean that he deserved to die (well, no more than the rest of us), it’s just to put it into context of the powder-keg situation which has developed at this and similar street-protests over the past few months.

Graham, I do think he was seriously inebriated

Yet it is probably obvious that he had been “seriously inebriated” (as many in the city after work always are) many times before. So what was different about this day?

Oh yes. So a working man going about his lawful business was killed.

“I do think he was seriously inebriated (and, as an alcoholic, may have imbibed… not imbued, as I said above… large quantities) and, based on personal experience, know irrational and aggressive behaviour is a possibility.”

Has your personal experience of this come as part of a group of officers, dressed in riot gear, with batons, and dogs? If not, then it’s not really comparable. Wobbling about the road, swearing, swinging the odd haymaker (not saying Tomlinson did any of these things, please note) might be a serious inconvenience to you and me, but it shouldn’t be to trained riot police. If it is, they shouldn’t be policemen.

(It is funny watching that keefiyah-clad “student” getting more mockney as the video goes on BTW.)

I saw that video about 4 days ago.

Cor blimey!

Yet it is probably obvious that he had been “seriously inebriated” (as many in the city after work always are) many times before.

And when besuited respectable types pick a fight, they may get sprayed.

So what was different about this day?

He was confronted by riot-clad rozzers in a highly charged environment. Playing devil’s advocate, this may have set him off.

A hell of a lot of people are using this for ideological reasons I’m afraid, just as I predicted. Menezes and all the rest of it is being brought out, and Medialens and co are using it to bash the BBC. It’s propaganda.

People need to calm down and look at it rationally.

I know, he couldn’t quite make up his mind whether he was law student doing his civic duty or agent of change bringint the City to its knees.

Still, useful evidence, i feel.

There’s clearly an issue with police briefings serially misleading the media in the wake of embarrassing and mishandled incidents.

(It is funny watching that keefiyah-clad “student” getting more mockney as the video goes on BTW.)

What are you talking about?

And when besuited respectable types pick a fight, they may get

Are you suggesting that Mr Tomilinson was “picking a fight” whilst walking away? What a remarkable ability.

At that time of day in that area both besuited “respectable” types and Newspaper sellers in Millwall shirts are walking around in a state of inebriation every day of the week.

this may have set him off.

set him off to do what? Walk away from them too slowly? Are you suggesting hitting him was justified even if he had been uttering something under his breath? I fear we may have to redraw much of the law as it stand if that is the case.

A fat, drunken lout refuses to clear off during a slow-boil riot and the police are butchers for pushing his fat arse? Gee, I wonder why the UK is going down the crapper. Your whole society is rotting away from massive pc stupidity.

What are you talking about?

See Sy’s video at 12.29 in which two young protestors give their version of events.

See Sy’s video at 12.29 in which two young protestors give their version of events.

I have and his accent doesn’t change during the video. It isn’t cockney but it isn’t pretending to be cockney either. It sounds like a typical south London accent.

“A fat, drunken lout refuses to clear off during a slow-boil riot and the police are butchers for pushing his fat arse? Gee, I wonder why the UK is going down the crapper. Your whole society is rotting away from massive pc stupidity.”

Be gone, false prophet

Are you suggesting that Mr Tomilinson was “picking a fight” whilst walking away? What a remarkable ability.

For goodness sake, no. I was responding to your prole hovis sandwich about lots of heavy drinkers in the City with a story which showed that the Police are not adverse to using force in response to disturbances at Tory party functions.

set him off to do what? Walk away from them too slowly?

First, he was not muttering under his breath, he was obvious engaged in conversation, and we do not know what preceded these events. As someone said above, this was a perfect storm of the worst-possible outcomes. Painting him as a passive victim would come back to haunt you if it emerges he’d previously confronted the officers (or, in his state, more likely tried to pick a fight with the dog).

Which is why I’m waiting for more information.

Given that several witnesses have alleged this wasn’t the first time he’d been assaulted by the police that evening, he may well have been asking why they kept harrassing a harmless middle-aged drunk trying to make his way home.

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

One witness, Anna Branthwaite, a photographer, described how, in the minutes before the video was shot, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street.

“A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him,” she said.

“It wasn’t just pushing him – he’d rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable.

“It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.

“So it wasn’t just that the officer had pushed him – it became an assault.

“And then the officer picked him up from the back, continued to walk or charge with him, and threw him.

“He was running and stumbling. He didn’t turn and confront the officer or anything like that.”

The witness accounts contradict the official version of events given by police.”
(from the original Guardian story)

That’s fair, Sy. However, given that this story is going to run and run, some care with comments is required. If evidence shows it, the officer/s should be subject to the relevant proceedings.

I have and his accent doesn’t change during the video. It isn’t cockney but it isn’t pretending to be cockney either.

Well I’m not going to argue about it (I’m just going to snigger.)

For goodness sake, no. I was responding to your prole hovis sandwich about lots of heavy drinkers in the City

I think you will find 90% of the drinkers in the city on a given day are very much not proles of any sort (so Gawd knows what you are bleating about.)

he was obvious engaged in conversation

Damn! he couldn’t even be bothered muttering (the uppity sod obviously deserved what he got.)

They were looking for evidence of a beating. If you do a post mortem on someone who appears to collapse on the streets from a heart attack you probably don’t look for anything else.

Another idiotic comment by someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Your whole society is rotting away from massive pc stupidity.

That’s surely the heart of the matter. If this PC hadn’t hit this man on the leg with a baton and then shoved him to the ground, we wouldn’t be in this mess

Indeed, Mr Amused.

In fact, the whole thing is just another case of PC gone mad (no wonder the Mail’s readers are so exercised).

Clowngirl herself has also been interviewed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktQjIMuig&feature=related

She was exhausting!

The hapless bloke behind her reminded me of someone at the original demo – he was trying to selotape a cardboard sign (saying WTF?) to the stone walls of the BoE.

The revolution will not be televised (someone will forget to put batteries in the camera).

another case of PC gone mad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21e7po1Sro

All the people who threw bottles during the day should be hunted down and charged with attempted murder.

This is a statement by the guy who filmed the assault on Mr Tomlinson. I think it gives the lie to claims that he was behaving in an offensive manner. It also suggests that the police claims of bottle throwing by the crowd were exaggerated and it goes some way to confirming my view that far from controlling the situation, by early evening when some people at least want to leave, kettling by the police made matters worse.

“Around 7.20pm or so, the riot police began kettling the crowd away from the Bank [tube] station and the crowd began to panic as the police lines closed in. Then the dogs were brought in. I spotted Mr Tomlinson wandering around Royal Exchange very close to the police line with the dogs, hands in his pockets. He appeared to be only an observer.

“It was then, when Mr Tomlinson’s back was turned to the police line, that a masked riot officer forcibly threw Mr Tomlinson to the ground from behind. With his hands in his pockets, his ability to break his fall was limited. Although he did get his hands out in time, I believe he hit the top of his head on the pavement. This is all captured on the video.”

He only realised the significance of his footage later. “On my way back to Heathrow, I was reviewing the footage I had shot and had a disquieting feeling that the man I had filmed being thrown to the ground was indeed the same man who died that day.

“Over the weekend I confirmed through pictures released by the UK media that it was Ian Tomlinson.”

He decided to release the footage after realising that, despite allegations of assaults by officers, no concrete evidence had emerged of police attacking Tomlinson. “It was then that I decided to bring the video public, for the sake of the Tomlinson family, and getting to the truth of what happened to him.”

That decision, he said, had been correct. “Now that the video has been made public, I am comforted to see that action is being taken and an investigation is under way. My deepest regret goes out to the Tomlinson family for their loss.”

On the BBC website just now: A police watchdog said officers caught on video shoving a man to the ground during a G20 protest minutes before his death have yet to come forward.

So the police don’t know who it was? Hmm. Perhaps it was a protestor dressed up as a policeman. Devilish cunning these violent protestors. Or maybe the police present are even now synchronising their version of events with each other and in their notebooks.

Mrs B
This from The Times

“The Times understands that several of the officers standing next to Mr Tomlinson when he was pushed have come forward to speak to the IPCC, although the man who shoved him has not been identified.

One newspaper report suggested the officer involved belonged to the Met’s Territorial Support Group. The dog handlers standing nearby are believed to be from the City of London Police, which is separate from the Met.”

Not been identified, I assume he had a number on his jacket which could be identified using the correct digital equipment. Maybe it suits the police not to have him identified; the person saying he has still not come forward, was from the IPCC.

This account in the Times of the policing of G20 suggests the police were up for a fight and indeed part of the problem rather than part of the solution:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6060244.ece

I do think it’s reasonable that until we have more information about Mr Tomlinson’s state of health at the time and other encounters he may have had with the police on that day we should probably not rush to judgement about the link between the police’s actions and his death or the possibility of a manslaughter charge.
The police’s actions were clearly inexcusable though and however drunk he may have been or whatever he may have said cannot possibly justify what they did. Yes drunk people can suddenly turn nasty but there were about eight police officers there, most of them in riot gear, a couple of them with dogs. I think they may have been able to handle it.
Nor should people try to deflect the blame onto the protesters. He was walking along on his own, it is not as if he was caught up in a mob which was attacking the police. Yes, there may have been an atmosphere of heightened tension (although it didn’t seem like that when I went to have a look) but police are actually trained to deal with these situations.

Graham, I took your reference to the City to be a comment about bankers and wattknot emerging from a liquid lunch. You do have a tendency to turn everything into a class issue.

Andrew, I certainly think it is pertinent to question the motives of protesters. Whether or not this one scene posed a serious threat to the officers, it’s part of a series of street-protests of varying intensity and menace which Police should be not expected to endure. At the scene of the kettling, day-tripping protesters who’d expected a half hour jolly along Threadneedle Street found themselves delayed for three hours.

At the time, the instinctive response was to bewail this. Now there’s another complaint being directed at the Police. It may be merited – in fact, it probably is merited – but it doesn’t neutralize the whiff of cynicism about it.

I took your reference to the City to be a comment about bankers and wattknot emerging from a liquid lunch.

The demo was in the city old bean. Why you took that to be a reference to class is anyone’s guess (though I may be evoking Pavlovian responses.)

You do have a tendency to turn everything into a class issue.

Nah that would be easy to do in a situation where a Millwall fan is killed by police at a G20 demo. I think I have been very restrained (although of course Montag, in one of his guises has tried to stir things….)

At the scene of the kettling, day-tripping protesters who’d expected a half hour jolly along Threadneedle Street found themselves delayed for three hours.

Don’t forget to mention that (amongst all this inconvenience to protestors and day trippers) a man with no connection to the demo also found himself dead.

There’s another side of this we should bear in mind.

Someone was obviously filming the police. And since February, anyone, (including press photographers), is liable to be arrested for doing that, so long as the magic words “suspected of being helpful to terrorists” is trundled out by the arresting officer. Even if the charges are dropped, your details are kept on file.

Whoever recorded this evidence had to take a personal risk to do so, and the outcome might have been very different if the officer involved had noticed the camera.

Don’t forget to mention that (amongst all this inconvenience to protestors and day trippers) a man with no connection to the demo also found himself dead.

I haven’t forgotten. I’ve been arguing about it the whole thread. However, given that you were making pretty much the same point about the day-tripping protesters a couple of days ago, I would have thought you’d agree.

This was an unintended consequence of the officer’s actions. You can guarantee that Peter the Law Student, with his tres chic keffiyeh, and his mate Elias, or Clown “he was hit over the *front* of the head” Girl won’t ask themselves about the unintended consequences of using cities as a backdrop to their protest de jour.

However, given that you were making pretty much the same point about the day-tripping protesters a couple of days ago, I would have thought you’d agree.

I don’t disagree at all. But even when you take away the gnashing and wailing of protestors a man who was merely returning home from work normally now lies dead. If the police found him to be (lets say) drunk and disorderly then the proper response was to arrest him or at least to remove him behind their lines for questioning. Had they done this it is unlikely he would have died but even if he had there would not now be a video of a (supposedly) professional police officer carrying out a manouevre which was designed to send a drunken man with his hands in his pockets hurtling towards the ground in a very hard environment with absolutely no evidence that said officer and his colleagues were under any sort of threat.

To suggest that he was “asking for it” is rather obscene IMHO.

Mike/Alec, could you provide a source for your claim that alcohol was found “in his system”, plus any evidence you know of that he was a “chronic alcoholic”? All I can find is a witness quoted on Sky as saying he smelt of alcohol. That’s a very different thing.

Incidentally, “Mike”, this comment was posted over at Craig Murray’s yesterday:

“My take on the vid of police pushing the non-protester guy.

He was already dazed and confused before they pushed him, so the fall does not look to have anything to do with his death. He talked with the police right afterward. It’s questionable whether it was right of the officer to push him from behind, however Tomlinson did look to be uncooperative to their calls to clear the street. His hands cushioned his fall so no blow to the head seemed to occur. The alcohol confirmed to be in his system is what probably gave him the heart attack.

A sad and peculiar incident. No other person who came into contact with the police that day suffered any hospitalising injury – just bruises and scrapes – so it is very bizarre and unfortunate that someone collapses of a heart attack like this.

Speaking of which, there was one of those untrendy protests today about Sri lanka where big clashes with the police occurred. Nobody was hurt.

This death is a complete freak occurance.

Posted by: Jess at April 7, 2009 8:13 PM”

Hmm, that all sounds mighty familiar. You wouldn’t be a Met/Labour sockpuppet would you? That would put the casual throwaway remarks about alcohol in a whole new light…

Alix
You can read about him here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-friends-tributes

“You wouldn’t be a Met/Labour sockpuppet would you?”

Met/Labour can afford better.

Alec,

It is the police’s job to handle these demonstrations. It may not be an easy one but they signed up for it, they are trained to deal with it and there have to be limits to the tactics they use. I see no reason to believe, either from the video footage or from what I actually saw on the day, that those particular police officers had any reason to feel threatened at that time.
Yes, some of the protesters had dubious motives but the large majority, probably including Peter, Elias and Clown Girl went to protest peacefully (or at least non-violently). Whether or not one agrees with their views I find the instinctive hostility towards them shown by some people here just as distasteful as the cynicism which you, fairly I think in some cases, attribute to some of those who are beating up the police over this incident.

Fairs dos.

What, what, what? When did I get bracketed with Mike?

To suggest that he was “asking for it” is rather obscene IMHO.

It would be, which is why I wouldn’t (and seeing what has emerged since I started on this thread, am less likely to). This is going to be a major case, and I am trying to keep a degree of equanimity.

Heck, even the weird and nasty Brian Paddick agrees.

Er, I don’t think it really is Clown Girl you know…

Andrew, are you suggesting that the po-po intended to induce a heart attack and cause Tomlinson’s death? I doubt it; any more than Peter the Law Student, his mate Elias and Clown Girl intended to participate in a situation which ended so messily.

They just wanted a fun day out where everyone thinks how nice they are.

Craig Murray?

Craig “Tomlinson was brutally murdered” Murray?

Increasingly beyond parody.

She sounds as annoying as they look, Graham.

Alec, no of course I’m not suggesting that. But that police officer’s actions would have been unacceptable even if Tomlinson had suffered nothing more than a nasty bump the head. The point is that the expectation of someone being seriously injured as a result of you attending a demonstration is surely less than as a result of you hitting them with a baton and shoving them to the floor, and the personal culpability of that officer must surely be greater than that of Peter and his friends.

And what is wrong with wanting a fun day out?

The debate here is fairly redundant, as it happens. It is clear that the powers that be are going to take this matter seriously and inquire properly into what really happened. If this is fudged, we can return to the charge. And, if I might try to establish a formulation which we might conceivably all agree on, it might be this: if we as a free society accept that we need to entrust certain of our citizens with a unique right to use coercive force, we need to ensure that this right is very strictly controlled, and any abuse of it must be closely investigated.

That’s the nice guy bit.

Anyone who thinks that the right of the police to push people around is both self-evident and absolute is too right-wing to be tolerated on a forum like this. I am frankly a bit shocked that such people show their faces, as I was a few weeks back when a post was put up about surveillance cameras and many commenters said that it was perfectly OK for employers to collect and exchange information on potential employers who were trade union activists or other unwelcome trouble-makers. I can’t stop such people posting, but I see no reason to be polite or tolerant to them. There are plenty of fora which welcome right-wing hardliners. This doesn’t need to be one of them.

They just wanted a fun day out where everyone thinks how nice they are.

True. And whilst I am rather taking the piss out of clown girl it is done with a certain amount of affection (not to say a cringe-inducing memory of what iw as like as a teenager myself.) However, if someone goes on a fun day out with the rather excitible attitude that the entire police force are “murderers” who are looking for an excuse to murder someone else then it is not hard to see why Alec thinks a certain amount of provocation was in evidence (although everything I said earlier about the police supposedly being a professional organisation trained to handle even a violent demo without lashing out still applies.)

Agree with your last post, Cipriano.

It was a rhetorical point, Andrew. Responsibility for Tomlinson’s death will go first and foremost to the officer, even if it’s deemed to have been reasonable. However, if they wish politicos to face up to the unintended and deliriousness consequences of their actions from many thousands of miles away, they should apply appropriate introspection to their own actions.

I can’t seen even a scintilla being offered.

And what is wrong with wanting a fun day out?

Nothing. It’s just that one cannot then start preaching about what a wonderful person one is and who can effect world change can be effected by a half hour jolly up Threadneedle Street.

Despite all Mike’s comments about bottles being thrown at the police, this is what the Guardian has to say: “Police later claimed that they had to move Mr Tomlinson because they came under attack from missiles. However, analysis of television footage and photographs shows just one bottle, probably plastic, being thrown in the area.”

Why DO the Met police make it up as they go along? Didn’t they learn anything from the de Menezes case? Mind you look who is in charge of the anti terrorism squad? The goon Robert Quick who clearly engages brain before mouth.

I imagine because the film of the incident was shot by an american the police have been unable to confiscate it and prosecute him. The national and international press were of course prevented from filming G20 demos by the police.

Seems to me there is a lesson here. If you want your demo filmed, and indeed to collect evidence of what the police do (as opposed to what they say), then get an american or other overseas tourist to capture it on their camera or phone.

Talk about people making it up as they go along: I imagine because the film of the incident was shot by an american the police have been unable to confiscate it and prosecute him.

Seriously, do you think before you type?

Of course if there had been more CCTV cameras…..

(Yes, I know, Craig Murray thinks the films have all been confiscated anyway…)

“Tagmuzlsx says: “Ian Tomlinson got what he deserved. If his heart hadn’t exploded then, it would have exploded later that evening while he was fucking (or perhaps hitting) his wife, or arguing with his son, or annoying passers by the next day by hawking his papers.”

This is a joke right?”

No, It’s a factual statement. Unfortunately people like ‘Silent Hunter’ cannot handle stuff like this.

No, It’s a factual statement.

No it is not a factual statement. It is childish emotionally retarded cretinism designed to shock and masquerading as a comment on an adult blog. That is why very few people have commented on it.

Yes it is a factual statement, and you are just jealous that you cannot come up with the same crystal clear insights like I do. The fact that you people feel the need to sling mud, censor or pretend what I say doesn’t exist is irrefutable proof of my correctness.

You seethe because you know I am right.

“Why is it that whenever I arrive at a topic where there are already 150+ posts and I scroll to the bottom I find Graham arguing about class but denying he is obsessed with class.”

You’ve only just noticed this!!

Alec,

if they wish politicos to face up to the unintended and deliriousness consequences of their actions from many thousands of miles away, they should apply appropriate introspection to their own actions.

What actions are they? Merely attending a lawful demonstration with the intention of protesting peacefully makes you partly responsible for anything bad that happens there? You might have more of a point if you at least directed your ire at those people who were actually intent on causing trouble but even then the behaviour of that police officer was so far removed from what could reasonably be expected in those circumstances you simply can’t pin any of the responsibility on the protesters.
Moreover it is worth considering how his actions were influenced by the mindset of the police in general on that day. The police were not all neccessarily neutral actors merely responding to events, their actions and decision, and the attitudes that informed them, had an influence on how things eventually turned out.

It’s just that one cannot then start preaching about what a wonderful person one is and who can effect world change can be effected by a half hour jolly up Threadneedle Street.

I haven’t seen anyone claming that merely being on that march made them a wonderful person or that they were going to change the world. No doubt many of them believed they had a righteous cause and that by voicing their protest they were doing the right thing, but that is equally true of anyone who protests anywhere about anything in any way, including those who do so by commenting on the internet.

Tagmuzlsx,

What is a factual statement? That he would have had the heart attack anyway regardless of what happened to him at the demonstration? Well it’s reasonable speculation but we don’t know enough at this stage to declare it a fact. Or do you mean it’s a fact that he got what he deserved? If so would you like to justify that remark. In fact would you like to justify it anyway.

No it is not a factual statement to moralise that a man got what he deserved on the basis of your personal dislike, or that his heart would have given out later anyway on the basis of your medical “skills” and predictions. Nor is anyone seething about you. Those of us with small children recognise you for what you are and find you just a boring drudge with a need to annoy the adults which you rarely satisfy.

Please. I see all sorts of outrageous and unsubstantiated comments and mostly by the people on the left.

It is obvious that his heart attack would have been triggered by other stressful circumstances, unless he a had a rare heart condition that only precipitated heart attacks if he was being pushed over by a riot policeman. If there is such a disease, I am not aware of it.

Ian Tomlinson was drunk, and did not move when the policeman asked him to move. The response of the policeman was completely appropriate and deserved. I was not referring to his subsequent heart attack. Anyone who did not understand what I was referring to obviously has poor reading and comprehension skills.

As for you ‘The Plain Truth’, you’re sole contribution to this thread has been to level hysterical, baseless and emotive accusations at people who’s opinions you dislike. Other than that, you obviously have nothing else to say.

I think you need to learn some maturity yourself.

According to his father, his other son died a year ago from a massive heartache. He, too, was in his mid 40s. So, besides the lifestyle factors, there appears to be also a possible genetic component.

Further video footage of the officer that murdered Ian Tomlinson can be seen here -in the hours that lead up to to vicious assult. One can see that this officer is no better -and probably far worse, than the protestors

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=20486073001