G20 Death

So having your hands in your pockets and walking away from the police is "suspicious" behavior?

FFS.
 
think you are trying to make the situation look more than it was IS..if walking away with your hands in your pockets deserves being attacked for then we had better start worrying

so officer..why did you knock the chap to the ground?...well its like this..he was walking away from me with his hands in his pockets..real threatening like :o

i'll put it this way - i can think of many creatures that orm round our village and town that really do deserve a good kickin...but will never get it...instead we have this situation where it could have been you or I minding our own business getting treated like a piece of shite

i can't see how any right minded person can think that bloke deserved that
 
Last edited:
Have to be a little careful as none of us know the full facts. However it is extremely evident that in walking away from the police the victim was not endangering either the police or the public. It follows that the officer involved was not acting in defence of himself nor anyone else. He is committing an assault. Punishment should be certain.
It appears that the victim was an alcoholic staying at a hostel for the homeless. In viewing the videos he certainly seems either pissed or ill. Whether his behaviour in this state angered the copper or not, still there is no mitigation.
 
He could of had any weapon in his pockets, you weigh up his reactions not turning around when police has tapped him on shoulder then decides to keep walking and put his hands in pocket could be deemed suspicious, he could of pulled anything out and it was pretty stupid of him to walk right in the middle of a protest past police who had their handsful all day long. I am not saying he deserve to die or the push in the back caused the heartattack but he could of avoided the situation, he didnt make things easy on himself.
 
I think our Italian Stallion may be a member of the Met Police:D
I wouldn`t like him to be on a jury trying me...the police are always right and should be given the benefit of every doubt...even if there is no doubt.
 
I'm afraid a few of you guys ought to have been living where I was in 1984...you would have seen just how fair some of the police can be to ordinary working folk:blink:

some of the scum masquerading as police in those days needed booting out real fast..and a damn good beating to boot..bastards some of those were

there are far too many people wanting to make excuses for the type of policeman that this particular one is...one question...why do you want dickheads in the police???

the police have a hard job..and its made even harder having tossers like this officer within their ranks.

instead of making excuses for him we should all be wanting him OUT of the force..he is tarnishing others
 
Tout Seul

if being pissed and being unsteady on the feet is good enough reason to get you a thumping then there would be about 5000 assaults in our town centre every weekend night :rolleyes:
 
Well the only people I've heard apply similar logic IS's are paratroopers Dan!!! Oh and Margaret Thatcher when deciding to sink ships to start a war. And thinking about it further a 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' sketch called "police officer Savage"

My first reaction was that IS was just giving us a wind up post, but I'm not so sure that he doesn't actually believe it?

So far as we can establish at the moment based on what we've been told, Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper seller (presumebly the Standard or the Big Issue?) and had left his 'stand' or pitch at about 6.30 to walk back home. It struck me as pecuiliar that a newspaper seller could afford to live in the financial district of London, but that's another story I guess, but would tie with the idea that he's in a hostel

He used his normal route but was turned back. At this point it is reported by at least one media eye witness that he was the victim of an unprovoked attack by a police officer. (the same one?) I don't know, but I'm interested as to why when this woman gave her account over the weekend she was named, but by Wednesday would only be interviewed under the guise of anonymity.

He changes his route and tries to walk round the area where the crowd is, but again encounters a police blockade which is where the fatal incident occurs. The officer that launches the attack isn't in the most advanced position and couldn't reasonably claim to be provoked or acting in self-defence. In fact he comes from out of a crowd and is quite a way bit back. There's two 'city of London' police (the ones with the red and white round their hats) who he has to pass. He's also taken the precaution to wrap some scarve round his face to partially conceal his identity which tells me that is premeditated.

Last time I knew walking in a cocky fashion - wasn't a crime? (shades of the NtNON sketch where PC Savage has arrested the man on a charge of "looking at me in a funny way" - "walking on the cracks of the pavement" - "walking around in a built up area, in a loud shirt during in the hours of darkness" etc. Neither is walking with ones hands in ones pockets, an offence. The extension of IS's logic (if indeed you could even call it that) is that all citzens should walk around the towns and cities of this country with their hands in the air for fear that a paranoid, brain dead police officer thinks that they might be concealing a weapon. If you've got a sufficiently fertile and perverse imagination, you could probably interpret anyone of 100's of minor actions in someones body language as threatening if you're prepared to look for the most far fetched scenario.

So if you are face on at a police officer and waving your arms out you're a threat. If you turn your back on one and put your hands in your pockets, you're a threat. Where does it stop?. Even if you lie on the floor, or sit in the road, they consider you a threat? What do they teach them at Hendon?

I find myself more likely to be persuaded by the idea that Tomlinson might have been known to them for some other unrelated reason (football thug has been mentioned) as there's nothing in his background that suggests he's a political animal of conscience, a rabid anti capitalist, or an environmentalist. On his way home some copper's spotted him and thinks that under the cover and confusion of a minor disturbance he can take him down, and perhaps settle an old score. The copper takes the precaution of covering his face, and then launches his attack from quite a way back, before scurrying off to explain to his superior what he's done. Could it be that if he didn't move when he did, Tomlinson might get away, or that within another couple of seconds the opportunity could have been lost?

If the copper really believed he was carrying a weapon perhaps you'd be so good as to explain why no officers sought to search him for it, or arrest him? Is he not more likely to use it after having been assaulted anyway?. I thought the Met were supposed to be having a crack down on knife crime? Ideal opportunity for them to take one off the street. The fact that they didn't search for one, only leads me to think they didn't think he was carrying one, and therefore makes a mockery of the whole notion that he's acting suspiciously by putting his hands in his pockets.

I'd also be interested to know why at 23.00 on the evening concerned the Met put out a statement saying none of their officers had come in contact with Tomlinson? (a palpable lie it would appear). Why did none of them come forward to offer testimony to the mans death? Even with credible eye witnesses giving their accounts within 48 hours were the Met still unable to identify the officers concerned? Why did it take the emergence of an American film handed to the Guardian before the first officers came forward on Wednesday morning? Why however, (and despite these officers actions in coming forward) were the Met still unable to name the officer by 18.30 on the same evening, conceeding as they did that they didn't know who it was? Are they really that bad at crime detection? Could it be that those officer who had come forward either refused to name the assailant or made out they didn't know him, or didn't see it? The footage clearly shows that enough of them witnessed the attack. Is is possible that in something as fraught as crowd control where close and accurate communication between officers is so important, that those who were policing the area with this officer didn't know his name? Would they really have been reduced to calling each other "mate"?

The police are quick to appeal and even blame the public who are reluctant to give testimony against criminals. (Rhys Jones and Letitia Shakespeare being two that come to mind). Judges aren't averse to jailing people who are reluctant to speak either. Yet they don't appear to be conducting themselves any differently? Am I alone in seeing the contradictions in their actions with their public protestations?
 
Last edited:
:lol:

I'm in Chesterfield, its a bit smaller than Nottingham :rolleyes:

very good post Warbler..

its quite clear that without any footage to look at this would have been swept under the carpet..which is a disgrace...which means the police as a whole needs looking at from top to bottom because its a clear a cover up was the order of the day

like i said before..the police would have had a major shake up in the 80's if folk had been filming incidents daily from the miners strike..we haven't moved on much have we?...basically once you get that uniform on you can..if so minded do what the hell you like...and then rely on decent colleagues to keep their gobs shut

i would imagine if we had no footage and one decent copper came forward and named the dobber that did this...he would be the one drummed out of the force

why do decent coopers have to be afraid to report this sort of thing?..that in itself shows that they know they will get little support from above

hardly a police force to be proud of is it where decent coppers are scared?
 
The exact opposite.

"In viewing the videos he certainly seems either pissed or ill. Whether his behaviour in this state angered the copper or not, still there is no mitigation"

An apology perhaps?

As to there being far too many people wanting to make excuses for the type of copper this one is, I have seen very few, probably because his action is indefensible from the viewpoint of most reasonable people. His superior officer is also culpable as he is close by and can clearly see what is happening. Expecting his close colleagues (and possibly friends) to give him up, whilst desireable, is being a little optimistic. I'd venture to say that some might have told him he was being a twat. I would not anticipate that one would step forward, possibly using the presence of a senior officer, whose obvious duty would be to report the incident, as an excuse.
Every time I have written or typed for over 40 years I have felt the pain that results from having my wrist badly broken,together with my arm and several teeth in a series of beatings from several policemen for a supposed offence committed when I was totally innocent of any wrongdoing. In court the magistrate criticised their behaviour including their fabrication of a story that had me as a leader of a group of West Ham fans trying to attack Spurs supporters. Since one of their own had noted that my bedroom walls were totally covered with pictures of Spurs players they were not only thugs but stupid as well. So I have some justification to rant against the police.
Thankfully since that time, and since the miners's strike, the general behaviour of the police has improved to the extent that many criticise them for not being physical enough. Of course there are bullies and thugs in their number but tolerance of these is far less now than it was.
 
Last edited:
I agree completely TS.

I can't help thinking that the policeman who assaulted Mr Tomlinson was settling an old score. That doesn't justify it in any way, shape or form of course. I don't know if Tomlinson had any previous convictions for being drunk and disorderly but in a high-pressured situation a policeman spotting this very recognisable figure just might have thought 'Oh God, not HIM again' (or something along those lines) and launched an assault feeling confident that he would not have been recognised.

One thing this does prove - CCTV cameras certainly aren't there for use against the police in this kind of situation. Does anyone really believe that a CCTV didn't pick up this incident on camera? Of course one almost certainly did and the evidence was quietly disposed of. Thank God for bystanders with a conscience.
 
Tout Seul said:
In viewing the videos he certainly seems either pissed or ill. Whether his behaviour in this state angered the copper or not, still there is no mitigation.
Click to expand...

I thought I'd re-view it too having taken the previous comments from memory. I'd agree that he looks unsteady on his feet, but then he has been the victim of an alleged assault a few minutes earlier, (some highly credible witnesses and trained observers) which might account for this?. His gait however, looks more like that of someone whose had a couple of drinks to me, although you could only really develop this angle with an autopsy.

The previous suggestion that he fails to respond to police tapping him on the shoulder is questionable too. An enquiring tap is normally delivered by the fingers and is, a tap, something more akin to a polite enquiry. Tomlinson isn't 'tapped', but appears to be shoved with an open palm on the shoulder (twice). The nature of this contact is much more consistant with someone trying to move someone on more quickly than they are moving, rather than someone trying to gain someones attention with the view to communicating etc In any event, if he has been the subject of an unprovoked attack a couple of minutes earlier (which some witness testimony suggests he has) is he likely to want to turn around knowing that he might walk straight into a punch? It might be that he's thinking that by showing his back instead, he can't be interpreted as offering a challenge, and reasoning that a police officer shouldn't attack him from behind thus. If he'd turned around the police would doubtless allege that he's squared up to them, and probably claim that he's said something threatening too. His posture by doing what he's done is palpably less threatening.

Tomlinson also has his hands in his pockets throughtout, which is another thing that renders IS's account redundant and bordering on fantasy. Had he been smacked on the shoulder (alright lets call it a tap) and then gone for his pockets, you might just be able to claim the police had some flimsy reason to believe he was reaching for a concealed weapon. The fact that this doesn't happen just renders the hypothesis and subsequent argument completely redundant. The hands are in the pockets before any contact is made. You might as well say that he was 'playing with himself' and therefore a potential sex offender, so we thought we'd place him on a regsiter.

I'm also curious as to why a second autopsy has been asked for? Is it possible that the police conducted the first one? Is it also possible that it failed to pick up bruising to the back of the legs consistant with a baton impact? or grazes to the knees and hands consistant with a fall on concrete? Is it even possible that there's a head injury of some sort consistant with an impact that the moving camera doesn't capture?

I've counted about 16 police officers including 4 dog handlers, I can't believe that if they really thought this man was carrying a weapon and presented a danger to the public, that they didn't at least have the resources to turn his pockets out.
 
Last edited:
A horrible incident, inexcusable on any account to attack a man from behind when posing no threat to anyone, I hope the copper - I was going to say 'fascist pig'! - gets put away for it. I'm afraid the police now react violently to anyone who dares give them any lip or doesn't 'jump to it' when ordered to. It's time all 'servants of the public' remembered who employs them - it's the Crown and the tax payer, not the 'State'

I'd take a certain satisfaction if the apparatus of the police state, namely a CCTV camera, had caught this; but I believe it was a journalist?
 
EC1 said:
its quite clear that without any footage to look at this would have been swept under the carpet..which is a disgrace...which means the police as a whole needs looking at from top to bottom because its a clear a cover up was the order of the day

like i said before..the police would have had a major shake up in the 80's if folk had been filming incidents daily from the miners strike..we haven't moved on much have we?...basically once you get that uniform on you can..if so minded do what the hell you like...and then rely on decent colleagues to keep their gobs shut
Click to expand...

It's pretty indiscriminate - the police in situations like that are mostly young men who get very 'adrenalined up' with the tension of the situation, since they are expecting (and often face) extreme violence during such protests - there is usually a lunatic fringe out to provoke a confrontation.

The Met got out of control outside Parliament and cracked the heads of several Countryside Marchers the afternoon of the last March - I was there, and saw some of it and the aftermath. There was no provocation at all! Fortunately photos were taken, tho the police tried to surpress them esp by confiscating film - now of course they would be legally entitled to confiscate any camera which had shot them!

So it's not a matter of 'politics', more an inability to deal with the tension of the situation. Police involved in the old Grosvenor Square demos back in the 70s admitted as much years later - they said they got so revved up it was like a 'hunt' and they violently attacked demonstraters - or just people caught up in the event - for no other reason that they were 'there'

The training needs to be much more conscious of this tipping point, when police are dealing with events like this, and esp when they are in riot gear which gives them a kind of anonymity, or at least a sense of their own invincibility
 
Last edited:
The footage of the copper hitting the woman is worse than the initial attack on the man.

she is clearly trying to point something out to him and he draws his baton and hits her with it..shortly after backhanding her earlier

I'm sorry, but this isn't really policing, its using a uniform to hide bullying tendencies behind

the habits that were deemed acceptable in 1984 are still alive and well in todays police force

if people are attacking the police I can accept they are going to get some hammer - but this stuff is - cowardly and unacceptable
 
Headstrong said:
- there is usually a lunatic fringe out to provoke a confrontation.
Click to expand...

The only lunatics are those people who think they'll ever achieve anything with peaceful protests.

You can sign as many Downing Street on-line petitions as you like. You can even join in government consultation papers. It won't make a jot of difference. The biggest demonstrations we've seen in this country (numerically) were all what you'd call peaceful. The Stop the war coalition 1.5M, The Countryside Alliance 0.75M, the CND protests of the 80's 0.5M, what do they have in common?

Much smaller protests that have the ability to spread however had much more impact because they became violent. The Poll tax demos saw the end of Attilla the Hen, and a change in legislation. The riots in Toxeth saw a de facto Minister for Merseyside installed and millions of pounds of urban programme money sunk into Liverpool. The other riots that followed in the early 80's saw sweeping changes to the police force with the suspension of 'sus powers' and the adoption of positive discrimination. The anti-nazi riots stopped the National Front in their tracks and saw the disbandment of the SPG (admittedly reincarnated since). Britain might have leant tacit support to the Americans but things such as the Grosvenor Square protests ensured we never committed forces to Vietnam (in contrast to today, or Manchuria before that)

Very occasionally a peaceful protest might succeed, but they are few and far between, and even when they do, most of them have their roots in violent resistance, confrontational defiance or uprising in their geneology somewhere.

That's not to say violence always succeeds, it doesn't, all it does do however, is give you a better chance, although history suggests you need to have a few failed attempts first before you eventually bring about change
 
Back
Top