Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

G20: Getting to the truth- the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP

did you read the CoL police article i linked to?

I did read it didn't see anything remarkable about it. At the time one broken window in a bank seemed like a bit of a result in comparison to the beginning of a revolution.

The establishment voices quoted weren't supporting the handling of the death in particular. That hadn't really come to the fore at that point yet.
 
The police attack on the man who died in the G20 demonstration has parallels with the death of Anti-Nazi protestor Blair Peach. This is his story

Thirty years ago this month, Blair Peach, a 33-year-old who'd come over from New Zealand to teach at a special needs school in East London, was killed while protesting with the Anti-Nazi League against the decision to allow the National Front to hold a meeting in Ealing town hall.

Throughout the 1970s, Southall, an Asian enclave of west London, had been a hotbed of tensions between immigrant residents, their supporters on the political left and anti-immigration groups such as the neo-fascist National Front.

At a meeting held on St George's Day, April 23, 1979, the National Front were preparing for their General Election campaign. Their candidate, the Socialist Worker newspaper reported, pledged to "bulldoze Southall to the ground and replace it with an English hamlet".

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46954,features,blair-peach-30-years-on-death-of-a-political-protestor

It also 25 years on from The Battle of Orgreave is the name given to a confrontation between police and picketing miners at a British Steel coking plant in Orgreave, South Yorkshire, in 1984, during the UK miners' strike. In 1991, South Yorkshire police were forced to pay out half a million pounds to 39 miners who were arrested in the events at the Battle of Orgreave.

The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) organised a mass picket of Orgreave for June 18, 1984, with the intention of blockading the plant, and ideally forcing its temporary closure. Aware of the plans by means of MI5 infiltration, the police organised counter-measures.

The NUM was represented by 5,000 to 6,000 pickets from across the UK. The police deployed between 4,000 and 8,000 officers, and were deployed from 10 counties. Of these, a small number had been trained in new riot tactics following the Toxteth and Brixton riots, while most had little or no experience in dealing with such events. There were between 40 and 50 mounted police and 58 police dogs. There were no women officers and only a handful of female picketers.

Unlike most of the strikes of the time, where picketers were kept well away from their intended positions, the strikers were escorted to a field to the north of the Orgreave plant. The field was flanked by police on all sides except the south, where the Sheffield to Worksop railway line runs. Opinion is divided as to whether this was a deliberate arrangement.

20 Years on from The Hillsborough Disaster was a deadly human crush that occurred on 15 April 1989, at Hillsborough, a football stadium home to Sheffield Wednesday in Sheffield, England, resulting in the deaths of 96 people (all fans of Liverpool Football Club). It remains the deadliest stadium-related disaster in British history.[1] It was the second of two stadium-related disasters to feature Liverpool supporters, the other being the Heysel Stadium Disaster in 1985.

The match was an FA Cup semi-finals clash between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. It was abandoned six minutes into the first half.

The inquiry into the disaster, the Taylor Report, named the cause as failure of police control, and resulted in the conversion of many football stadiums in the United Kingdom to all-seater and the removal of barriers at the front of stands.

Need we remind ourselfs how the police act:

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."

--from Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell (1903-1950)
 
Something ive been giving a thought to likewise, look ive had a drink/drug addiction ive come into conflict with the police and others, now lets be clear on this because these are facts it dose not make the actions of The Police right in any circumstance, to judge a person or act to a person because of whom they are thought to be is wrong, therefore it is also wrong that the actions of The Police killed him no matter the fact or circumstance.

I posed the queston and ill ask you direct sonny61 if you was one of The Police in uniform would you have beaten the protesters? or would you have removed the uniform and refused to?

Ill give my honest reply here, i would have removed my uniform.

It remains a fact the actions of The Police and this means the whole, contributed or indeed killed Ian, and for me this proves direct the injustice of capitalism and why people was there protesting, i have an issue with there class, also an issue with some of what they was protesting about, but i will never have an issue in dealing with THE MURDERING SCUM who killed Ian on that day no matter the facts or circumstance.

Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.

Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.
 
You don't think having quotes from the Stock Exchange and a 'head of corporate security at a leading bank' shows a lack of impartiality?

But in the City of London the Stock Exchange and Banks are are the closest thing you could get to residents. I suppose you could get comments from demonstrators saying how well the police did their job, but in practice people on protests would never say that so the police PR have to go elsewher to get their comments
 
Sweepstake on how long before someone's arrested for photographing an officer committing a crime? I give it a month - if it hasn't happened already.

Any test case for this new legislation will be a nightmare for the police. If the footage/images in question involves police misconduct then there'll be a truly epic shitstorm.

Hopefully :eek:

D'you know what, I bet Google Streetview is great for terrorists. They can now scout their target location thoroughly without the need to physically go there and look dead suspicious taking photos of everything and staring at CCTV cameras. Wonder if this new legislation will get Google in trouble?
 
Against Police brutality- Saturday 11th April-


WHEN: This Sat the 11th of April...11am

WHERE: From Bethnal Green Police station to Bank

Any idea why it's from Bethnal Green nick? Any ideas that can be mentioned without committing contempt of court, that is :)
 
Any idea why it's from Bethnal Green nick? Any ideas that can be mentioned without committing contempt of court, that is :)
IIRC, it's because that's where those arrested on Saturday were taken.
 
Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.

Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.

So i take from that a drunken (if he was) man seems to be a threat, and the police have the right to kill him then say well self defenece, no the police was not under any attack or threat, it was them beating and keeping people in one location, in this circumstance it will lead to anger, but lets me honest here shall we?

Ive said it befor to you and read my others post on this, there is no right to kill a man, this one being Ian, in any given circumstnace, that circumstance was created by the action of The Police on the day, now a man is dead, of course they will walk from it they allways do.
 
Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.

what's your evidence for this??

were you there?

I was, I didn't see protesters charging police lines
 
Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.
been there, done it, the baying mob were tooled up with metal bars, shields, pepper spray, helmets, shields and protective padding, and fully masked up so they couldn't be identified... ay, it was your mob of thugs.

Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.
just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true... there is no evidence that he was drunk. As has been repeatedly pointed out on this thread, his actions as described in the sun could just as easily have been the result of a medical condition such as a stroke, concussion, or hypoglycemea. There is no way that either the police in the van, or the witness could have known if he was drunk or ill unless they could smell his breath from the police van.

Given the fact that he died shortly later, and there has been no mention of blood alcohol levels in all these smear, don't you think it's perhaps possible that he wasn't actually drunk, and was in fact ill, quite likely as a result of being assaulted by the police.

note that the timing's of these images have 99.9% certainly been taken from the time stamp on the camera, which probably hadn't been moved on an hour, which would put those images as taking place right around the time that he'd been attacked. Something that becomes more likely when you consider that his work mate on the newspaper stall has stated that Ian hadn't left the stall until 7pm - ie 50 minutes after those images are alleged to have been taken.

so yes, let's have the truth, but let's make that particular truth be actually what happened, rather than the twisted version of the truth that the establishment would like us to have... more commonly known as a lie.
 
Fair play to the Guardian on this one for not accepting the official line, and actually doing some proper journalism on it.

IMO this shows why people don't have faith in the IPCC to investigate this properly.
indeed. nuff respect.

ipcc has very little credibility on the back of the past few days reportage.
 
Unconfirmed story doing the roads of a TV news outfit is that the officer who pushed Tomlinson was also in the ruck at the climate camp.
 
On Krishnan G-M's interview with Hardwicke (on ch 4 news - and watchable from their site):

He was suitably probing and sceptical, but didn't do the follow up -

He got an admission they had known about the polic contact and had complaints to that effect well before the Guardian's film - but didn't really press him on why the investigation wasn't taken off the CoL police as soon as they knew

He got an admission that several officers (literally) in the frame of the filmed attack hadn't come forward - and admitted he didn't even know whether the senior officer filmed had come forward. However, he didn't ask what he had done to get the rest of them identified.

Most of all he didn't press him on the cctv and whether it was remotely plausible that there was none. Before that, Hardwicke had been going on about the time it had taken to go through all the footage. Is he saying there was footage (but no cctv) of the incident or not?

To be honest, Hardwicke looked totally incompetent and that the whole thing had overwhelmed him - though beyond this he was also mightily cosy with the police and unwilling to question anything they had told him.
 
I take it from that that you are OB? Yes?

Might just be?

What i do not understand is how last week they could be beating kicking people, this week helping old ladys across the road? would this not play with your mind if you was normal human being? it would me, just the same gose to those who beat Ian, i mean how the fuck can you just simply not come forowrd and be honest, say erm i lost it etc, of course fucking not, for me those who beat kicked people took some form of plesure from there actions, and these are the people in the police? fuck me i know it concerns myself and so it should evryeone else that they can act like this and ill reapeat this, no doubt walk away from there actions, something is very wrong, oh i know that one it is the very reson people was there, injustice..
 
Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.

Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.

This is mere conjecture that he was drunk.
 
It's sickening to see the smear machine out in full force over this man, the way he's described by some of the papers. A homeless alcoholic, whereas a tax paying father of nine would be more appropriate. I don't know how anyone can try and justify the police officers actions because of the speculation that he may have been drunk even though their is first hand evidence from his boss before he left work that he wasn't.
 
It's sickening to see the smear machine out in full force over this man, the way he's described by some of the papers. A homeless alcoholic, whereas a tax paying father of nine would be more appropriate. I don't know how anyone can try and justify the police officers actions because of the speculation that he may have been drunk even though their is first hand evidence from his boss before he left work that he wasn't.

It reminds me to much of myself, i see a man who i was and no doubt killed due to that fact (just my feelings) of course the smear machine will come out in force, due to fact of fear and that we could all end up being Ian, ive been there had much the same done to me, haveing it still done to me, it angers me likewise and has been playing on my head, due to fact ive been there so close and for good fortune come out the other end, Ian was sadley killed and i can not begin to tell you the rage anger and tears one is going through, it hurts very much..
 
To be honest, Hardwicke looked totally incompetent and that the whole thing had overwhelmed him - though beyond this he was also mightily cosy with the police and unwilling to question anything they had told him.

This was my impression too.

I'm also furious at the way Ian Tomlinson is being smeared. Even if he was drunk, so fucking what? Since when was there a law against having a few drinks after work? He was walking away from the police, hands in pockets, when he was assaulted. There can be no justification whatsoever for what the police did. None.
 
It reminds me to much of myself, i see a man who i was and no doubt killed due to that fact (just my feelings) of course the smear machine will come out in force, due to fact of fear and that we could all end up being Ian, ive been there had much the same done to me, haveing it still done to me, it angers me likewise and has been playing on my head, due to fact ive been there so close and for good fortune come out the other end, Ian was sadley killed and i can not begin to tell you the rage anger and tears one is going through, it hurts very much..

I'm surprised only one person died to be honest, from seeing the videos and images of the police tactics used. I think serious questions need to asked about the whole operation at the protests, not just around Ian's death.

What angers/saddens me most is that the next day could have been a fresh start for the bloke, he was a flawed person but who the hell is perfect. He hasn't got a chance to put right some of things that were wrong in his life all because some pumped up baton wielding prick took exception to him. The entire atmosphere that was built up by the police was one of violence and confrontation and when it failed to materialise on the day they went looking for it themselves.

:mad: just fucking :mad:
 
I can't believe what i have just heard, amongst other outrages.. there is NO CCTV footage of the areas involved.:mad::mad:


I would laugh if this wasn't so serious.

'innit - ive met hardwick a few times, back in my sketchy teenage days when i lived in a centrepoint hostel for a year (he was running centrepoint)

he always seemed a good bloke, took a genuine interest in the punters (me), always remembered my name and seemed better than most of the bigwigs in the homeless industry - he was well liked by centrepoint staff as well

had high(ish) hopes when i heard he'd gone to the ipcc, but they seem worse than ever and he just came across as a nice but dim stooge in that interview
 
Given the disappearing CCTV its really important that everybody checks through anything they may have shot on the day - at the right time and place or not. I know most people will already have done that, but others might not have. Who knows, there might be people who were travelling on from London and haven't yet got near a PC to download the stuff. Might be worth getting a request out on to any networks we are part of.

With all the smears about him being drunk its important to get the timeline in place - from work through to the 2nd assault on him. Alongside this there's a need for as much eye witness and photographic evidence along that journey - to see if he was walking normally - to see when he began to 'look drunk' [if he did do] - and whether that was after the first assault on him. I agree that its irrelevant whether he was drunk or not - they shouldn't have attacked him anyway. However, its going to feature heavily in the propaganda battle and potential court case.

Its also important that people who have footage feel confident to bring it forward. They might not want to send it to the IPCC (I fucking wouldn't), but the family solicitors might be a better bet. There was something on the Guardian site giving their contact details IIRC.

Given the incompetence (and bias) of the IPCC I'd guess there's also a need for an alternative investigation - which might just be done within the 'movement', but would be better if it was run by some kind of 'respected' legal figure.

E2a: realise the above is all pretty obvious and will have occurred to people who have participated in this thread.:oops: What I meant was we should be pushing these points beyond Urban.
 
I'm also furious at the way Ian Tomlinson is being smeared. Even if he was drunk, so fucking what? Since when was there a law against having a few drinks after work? He was walking away from the police, hands in pockets, when he was assaulted. There can be no justification whatsoever for what the police did. None.
Damn straight.
 
Back
Top Bottom