[Closed] G20 Protest death - Ian Tomlinson - have we done this yet?

It is wholly unclear that he was in any sense a criminal. At worst he appears to have been quite annoying. But we have been over this ad nauseam now.

yep just repeating the same things over and over again.

If they arrested him then that would have been fine, if they restrained him that would have been fine, however hitting him with a baton and barging him to the ground with enough force that he hits the ground hard whilst make no attempt to arrest him or restrain him is not fine.

Not rocket science is it.

I guess it is quite easy to get influenced by the knee-jerk media in this country. Like most things really.

Well, as long as the media keeps fooling me into believing in liberty and justice and objecting to brutality and abuse of power I reckon I'll roll with being brainwashed. 🙄 😉

The thing I totally don’t get is the fact that the whole day has to be one of the most photographed and videoed protests of all time. I mean there’s even a snap jockey in the video of the guy being mullered, and pretty much anything the police have done on the day has been personified by photographers in the front rank trying to get the $1,000,000 shot of Police brutality

That being the case even the meanest intelligence will realise that their actions will be subject to close scrutiny, and in all likelihood published so that being the case why on earth knowing that would anyone carry out an assault without warning?

Also is there any relevance in the fact that the clips I’ve seen appear to have been recorded without the benefit of sound?

The problem is, that the media are basically saying that the policeman murdered the guy. When in fact, all that happened is he pushed him and he fell over. It happens every single day in the playground FFS.

Its ok for protestors to smash windows, burn cars, throw bottles at the police because they are "expressing themselves".

WTF is happening to this country?

The problem is, that the media are basically saying that the policeman murdered the guy.

It happens every single day in the playground FFS.

Are you trolling or just a serving police officer defending your mates?

When in fact, all that happened is he pushed him and he fell over.

You try doing that to someone in the street in front of the police and see what happens to you.

It happens every single day in the playground FFS.

So you're posting this from your school's IT lab then? Now it all makes sense. 🙄

If the man hadn't died of an unrelated heart-attack this wouldn't even be being discussed. But because the press have linked it together well, the police are murderers and should be armed with flowers and polite language.

Man gets pushed over wouldn't have exactly made great reading.

G20 DEATH OFFICER - now that sells papers!

I loved the picture of the guy throwing a chair through the bank window, there was him and the rest of the crowd were papparazi looking for "the shot" I wouldn't be surprised if a photographer had paid a tramp nearby to do the deed just so they could get the front page photo.

Press - the scurge of the earth.

The 101 of how to belittle someones opinion:

1. Accuse them of being a troll
2. Imply they are still at school

If the man hadn't died of an unrelated heart-attack this wouldn't even be being discussed.

He did die though, so we are where we are.

The 101 of how to belittle someones opinion

I am not a doctor, but I have rather taken it as read in all of this that being hit with a club and knocked over in the street rather increases your risk of a heart attack, and if you drop dead 10 minutes after being thrown onto the ground then it is a good starting assumption that the two things are related. This can of course be disproved.

And no one is accusing the officer of murder. They are stating (correctly) that as a matter of law an assault leading to someone's death is manslaughter, and that there appears to be a case to answer here.

If there was not an assault (because thumping him was justified) then there is no manslaughter even if the thump causes the heart attack. If the thump can be established not to have caused the heart attack (which would have happened at about that time even if he had not been thumped) then there is clearly no mansalughter either.

🙂

If the man hadn't died of an unrelated heart-attack this wouldn't even be being discussed

but he did, nobody has a problem with the Police for doing their job and acting in a reasonable and professional. However they didn't and somebody died because of it, as for it being unrelated its a bit of a coincidence don't you think, man gets battered to the ground and dies < 5 minutes later

So being beaten up a couple of times and then pushed to the ground couldn't increase your chances of having a heart attack? I think you need to pay more attention in Biology.

So the fact that he possibly had a heart condition makes it okay in what way. Picture if you will your 82 year old granny being robbed in her house and dying from a heart attack ,lets just let the scrote got caught the old granny would have snuffed it in the next couple of years anyway so no big deal eh? Couple of hours community service should do it.

point is (again and again and again) that however it seems, until the assault and the heart attack / death are proved to be either linked or unlinked, it is speculation. Calling the policeman that pushed him over a killer serves no purpose at this point; he is an assailant and has a case to answer for that which may lead to further charges in due course. But he is as yet untried, unconvicted therefore *not* a killer - yet.

To persist in considering him convicted already detracts from the point for now, that the people involved have to be brought to account. no more and no less.

Just been on the news, the officer has been suspended, apologies if someones already posted this.

No, if directed by the police to do something, you do it.

Nice wait until some policemen ask you ot knee on the ground to pull your trousers down and decided to shove some hubcaps in your crack.

I am sure you'll have great pleasure to do it then.

surfer - Member

"still I guess you can't expect too much from a government that launches illegal wars based on lies."

[b]At last the crux of your argument. "where you stand depends on where you sit" as the quote goes.[/b]

Cor blimey, I've been busted ! ........ It's a fair cop guv, I done it all 😯

You're a right little detective aren't you surfer ? Despite my best efforts you've exposed me as an anti-war leftie 🙁

However, your "where you stand depends on where you sit" quote, gets somewhat challenged by the fact that right at the start of this thread I posted, quote :

[i]"despite this incident, British police are still amongst the very best in the world."[/i]

It kinda fux up your little theory, doesn't it Sherlock ?

Because you see surfer, unlike Daily Mail reading coppers, I have the ability to think for myself and I don't base 'where I stand' on irrational prejudices.

I didn't go to the G20 demo for several reasons, including the fact that a 'pick-your-own-cause' demo really didn't appeal to me. I believe that any demo should have a clear and focused message - half a dozen people all saying different things are unlikely to make their point heard, however honourable their cause.

Neither did it appeal to me to protest for the sake of protesting, a futile and pointless exercise which I leave to the 'transient' revolutionaries of the SWP, as they take their 'gap year' from being middle-class before abandoning the revolution to move onto their well paid professional careers.

However all that has changed now. After last week's incident in which the police went on the rampage, intimidated, threaten, and committing acts of gratuitous violence in an attempt to stop people from exercising their lawful rights, I fully intend to go to all similar future protests, if only to protest for the sake of protesting.

Because you see what is clearly at stake now, 'is the right to protest'. And I'll be fukked if I'm going to stay at home and watch TV whilst rights which have been fought for, at great cost and sacrifice, are being slowly eroded away.

I know that because of police brutality at the G20 demo many people will not go to any further demos, but I'll be there. And if I so wish, I will walk past coppers with my hands in my pocket, I won't show them 'respect' and take them out, I don't live in a police state. The police can expect exactly the same level of respect which they show me, but no more.

And I have to say that I find the 'Ian Tomlinson was taking the p1ss' defence used by some coppers on this forum quite frankly nauseating. That's the sort of defence which a thug uses to justify violently attacking a member of the public : "he was taking the p1ss, he wasn't showing me respect, [i]blah, blah[/i]"

.

BTW surfer, this time last year I was on this forum defending the police's 'in line with inflation' pay claim and condemning the government for expecting the police to take a cut in their living standards. Even though the average copper earns more than me and as someone who works in construction, I haven't had a pay rise since EU enlargement. I didn't support the government's attempts to blame inflation on public service workers.

British police are still amongst the very best in the world.

Yeah, even though. Accountability and the British tradition of 'Softly Softly' policing has ensured that.

hainey - Member

Press - the scurge of the earth.

Because, of course, the Press don't ever actually produce pics or stories of stuff that reveals the truth about a situation, helps change people's opinions, or highlights attrocities/situations we should all be aware of...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I apologise if anyone finds any of these images too much. I don't mean to offend anyone.

Frankly - I agree with your point, but showing the photos is a bit much IMO.

"So the fact that he possibly had a heart condition makes it okay in what way. Picture if you will your 82 year old granny being robbed in her house and dying from a heart attack ,lets just let the scrote got caught the old granny would have snuffed it in the next couple of years anyway so no big deal eh? Couple of hours community service should do it."

Well, precisely - or maybe "well, there was no need for her to have been so difficult, she could have just handed over her pension book, she was obviously playing the fool, besides, it's not so important to look at this one death, what's done is done, we should focus on the situation as a whole, and the 99% of scrotes that don't kill grannies..."

It is a sad reflection on the UK today where the media chasing headlines and ratings dictate the feelings and mood of society, esepcially with supposed intelligent people.

It happened with the Gulf/Iraq war, the media started pro Bush/Blair and then over time anti Bush/Blair.... war doesnt grab headlines after a period of time. Views on here on the whole reflected the media view.

In this case the media were just waiting for one of two things 1.Either for London to have a fantastic large riot (great for headlines but didnt happen) 2. Police to do some thing wrong (because afterall they still want to get the big headline)

Luckily for the media they got their story.

Now if it had been me walking down that street on the way home from work (nice work outfit by the way, or had he just been at work at the local chav pub all day?) I would 1. avoid a street full of riot Police and noisey protestors, and 2. If I had to go down the street I wouldn't when asked to move on by the Police put my hands in my pockets, turn my back to the Police and walk slowly in a defiant manner. Perhaps this is the problem though, I was brought up to respect the Police and do as they ask (within reason, and being asked to move on IS reasonable)

Who was right and who was wrong, well I dont know, because I wasnt there to witness it, and didnt see what led up to the situation and what was said between the Police and Mr Tomlinson. Perhaps the Police used more force than necessary, but if Mr Tomlinson did as he was asked then he would never have received a batton to the back of the legs (which is an approved Police technique when people refuse to comply)

The guy then got up and walked away....lesson learned I'd say. The fact that he died minutes later is unfortunate but could be completely unrelated. I dont know, because I dont know the facts, just like everyone else on here.

The only question is were the Police right to use a batton on him to control him. Personally from the limited info and video I have seen, yes they were he didnt do as asked.

nice work outfit by the way, or had he just been at work at the local chav pub all day?

Wow, way to be judgemental.

FunkyDunc, are you saying the Police have a right to hit you if you don't do what they say? When did that happen?

Maybe as a law abiding member of the public he was using the highway and Constable Savage didn't want him there. Interesting that the "soaraway sun" is now rubbishing the victim in the same manner that they did with the victims at Hillsborough.
Strangely all the CCTV cameras were off, or the footage has been "creatively archived" (© The Register) and the plod are now coming forward now that they have their story straight.
I may turn up at the next one with a streaming videocam to record everything and with storage away from the camera my footage will be safe.

RevWill,

As I implied its all in context. If I was just walking down an quiet empty street, and a Police man asked me to move on, and if I questioned why, he wacked me in the back of the legs then yes of course thats unreasonable.

If you walk in to an area with lots of riot Police asking people to move on, and in an ambivalent, defient manner turn your back to them put your hands in your pockets and walk slowly you are not doing everything you can to comply with their request are you?

If you walk in to an area with lots of riot Police asking people to move on, and in an ambivalent, defient manner turn your back to them put your hands in your pockets and walk slowly you are not doing everything you can to comply with their request are you?

He was possibly concussed, on account of being beaten with batons just five minutes earlier, while walking down another street. As far as the police knew at the time, he could have been mentally ill, on medication, or anything.

In fact, he may have been attacked twice by police before the filmed attack:

Ms Branthwaite told this newspaper how she witnessed two initial attacks further up the street as Scotland Yard's riot police swarmed the area.

"The dog handlers [believed to be City of London Police] were just starting to sweep the street and form a police line when Ian Tomlinson arrived. I saw a riot police officer charge him from behind and propel himself forward with his body weight," she said.

"Mr Tomlinson was on the ground and I saw him [the policeman] stand over him with a baton, hitting him twice. He was completely taken by surprise. He didn't know what hit him."

She added that he tried to get to his feet. "His natural instinct was to get up to run. The same riot police officer then grabbed him and ran with him for two strides and threw him forward." She then lost sight of Mr Tomlinson as she was hauled away by police. She was adamant that the filmed attack occurred seconds after the ones she witnessed. "He was not engaging with them [the police]. He was not taunting them. He was not shouting. It was completely unprovoked."

- [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-evidence-of-police-attacks-on-g20-victim-1666116.html ]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-evidence-of-police-attacks-on-g20-victim-1666116.html[/url]

and in an ambivalent, defient manner turn your back to them put your hands in your pockets and walk slowly

'I didn't like the way he was walking away from me, so I attacked him' - are you actually serious? Even if the police felt the need to move him, is a violent shove really the best way to do it?

I suppose you watched the video from the climate camp posted above, and can tell me how violently striking people with the edge of a shield is a legitimate crowd control technique against non-violent protestors?

I haven't read the whole thread but I can't believe anyone would think we live in a police state. You really REALLY need to read some history. If you think our liberties are being taken away by the police go and talk to someone that used to live in say East Germany, or maybe a North Korean. Or any number of other places.

I don't think we live in a police state but that doesn't mean we should be complacent - 'oh its ok, its nowhere near as bad as North Korea'.

Thank you for your post FunkyDunc, it really is a little gem. No really, I can't think of anything illustrating better how a moronic reactionary mind works. I particularly liked "esepcially with supposed intelligent people" lol

And thank you for pointing out that the assault victim was a member of the smelly 'lower-classes' the few punters on here who have made vague attempts to justify the assault, appear to have missed this vital piece of evidence. Or at least haven't been brave enough to point it out.

Your comments on the media are interesting. If only because they are complete bollox. The media [i]didn't[/i] start pro Bush/Blair and then over time become anti Bush/Blair over Iraq. Much of the media was anti Bush/Blair from the start, including papers such as the Mirror and the Guardian. Even the Times made it clear that although they were under rare editorial pressure from their proprietor, they were unhappy and gave plenty of space to dissenting opinions.

What did happen however was, that as it became clear that claims of WMDs were complete nonsense, the Iraqis weren't welcoming us with open arms, the whole operation was badly executed and Iraq descended into chaos with hospitals and universities being ransacked and looted, when all that became clear, more and more people began to question the validity of going to war.

In the case of the G20 protests the media might well have started off being pro-police, no great surprise there. However, when evidence started emerging of very dubious police tactics, and clear evidence of police brutality, questions began to be asked about the policing operations. No great surprise there either.

The media hasn't "created" this story, a man dying minutes after being attacked by the police IS a news story. Unless of course you live in a Police State, in which case it wouldn't be a story at all.

BTW FunkyDunc, are you accusing the media of manipulating public opinion, or chasing public opinion ? I'm not sure whether you can really have it both ways.

And although you claim "Luckily for the media they got their story" you don't appear to have actually bothered paying much attention to the story. Why do you ask "had he just been at work at the local chav pub all day?" when everyone knows that Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper seller ?

Anyway thanks again for your post FunkyDunc, if nothing else it has made me realise the futility of waiting for an intelligent person to come up with a half sensible justification of the police assault on Ian Tomlinson .

And good for you for being brought up to remove your hands from your pockets as an act of respect when walking past a police officer. Unfortunately I was brought up to believe that the police are there to serve me, and not to actually fear them. So until there is a coup d'etat and a military junta is installed, I will continue to have a very relaxed attitude towards the police and the army.

Strangely all the CCTV cameras were off,

Really? You'd think that this was just the sort of situation where CCTV would be very useful, in being able to monitor what was going on. Or has the footage just been 'disappeared', as seems to happen with alarming regularity, whenever police actions are called into question?

Because, of course, the Press don't ever actually produce pics or stories of stuff that reveals the truth about a situation, helps change people's opinions, or highlights attrocities/situations we should all be aware of...

Interstingly the one from Tianneman square is totally misleading. What actually happend is that 4 main battle tanks were stopped by one drunk guy, not a protestor, and backed up and tried to drive around him, when they failed becuase he kept getting in their way they turned and left. It was not until the government brought hard core troops in from another region that things turned nasty. This image has constantly been shown as an image of oppression in the Western media, but in fact is quite the reverse. If you watch the entire sequence from which this is cut you will see it quite plainly.
Subsequently, the troops stationed there, (their equivalent of the Guards regiments in London), have been completely replaced by a new and much toguher bunch who will not stand for much crap at all.

"Perhaps the Police used more force than necessary..."

Yes, that's exactly the fricking point, glad you've finally thought your way around to it. If you use excessive force, that's an assault - and if someone dies as a result of that assault, that's manslaughter.

Smacking someone with a baton or shoving people to the ground isn't a legal response to non-compliance with a legal request, no matter how much madey-uppy "police-approved manouver" tosh you come out with.

"The guy then got up and walked away....lesson learned I'd say. The fact that he died minutes later is unfortunate but could be completely unrelated"

Yeah, OK - you're right. It could be a complete coincidence that out of the four decades of his life, the moment that he chose to **** off and have a heart attack was ten minutes after being assaulted by a cop! Let me ask you a question - if you were in the dock for manslaughter, and whether you'd be found guilty or not depended on the jury believing that the heart attack was just a coincidence - how confident would you feel?

Interstingly the one from Tianneman square is totally misleading.

Whatever, G-Man. My point was, that those images helped highlight what was going on in China, and brought the issues to the World's attention. Until then, China had been largely ignored.

Your version of events seems to conflict with just about every other, I've read or seen. I'd be interested in learning how you know what you claim.

Speshly as the man was never seen again...

Whatever, G-Man

Actually it didn't, it displayed an extremely biast view at a time when delicate negotaitons regarding the handover of Hong Kong were going on and succeeded in creating an intransigence in the Chinese that didn't exist previously.

Eh? The Chinese authorities killed hundreds of people, protesting for democracy. These events were brought to us by a Press who's job it is, to inform and enlighten.

I fail to see how footage showing defiance of oppressive military action, or accounts of extreme brutality by the Chinese authorities, on their own people, is an anyway 'biased'!

My point is, that the Press have an extremely important and valuable job to do, and, like the police, they mainly do it extremely well.

G, could you suggest any sources that assert the view that this was just some random drunk, and that at the time in question things had yet to turn 'nasty', as it seems to be counter to the version of events that I remember.

Just track down and watch the whole sequence. This was in fact part of the third or fourth half hearted attempt by the local militia to move the protest on. In earlier efforts some of the soldiers had "fratanised" with the protestors and refused to obey orders. It was subsequent to this and after numerous attempts to bring about a peaceful conclusion that the Government brought in the equivalent of the paras and shockingly they then did what shock troops do. Its all a matter of record. To get your head around it try to visualise a scenario where our Government would allow the Mall to be occupied by protestors for weeks, without doing anything about it. Thats pretty much what actually happened.

For the record, at the time I was engaged in attempts to start a factory out there, and was amongst the first Western businessmen to try to do business there in that way. The aftershocks knocked us back years, and got even worse when that dick Chris Patton became governor of Hong Kong and started wattling on about democracy.

[i]Just track down and watch the whole sequence. This was in fact part of the third or fourth half hearted attempt by the local militia to move the protest on.[/i]

Yes i've seen the video, and i remember watching it at the time.
By the time the footage was taken by most estimates over 2000 people had been killed, so i'm a bit confused by your assertion that it was a misrepresnation of events. Could you explain what you feel was misrepresented? Do you feel not covering the slaughter would have been better for business?