Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

as said befor:

Eh?

In what sense does a list of things you say the police have done to friends of yours serve to back up your claim that they did something else entirely?

Criticise the cops, hold them to account - for things they have done. That you can show they have done.
 
That letter is classic.

Surely the Romans are to blame for choosing the original site of London so as to make it inevitable that anybody walking its narrow streets would at some point run into a police officer wielding a baton.

And people ask: "what have the Romans ever done for us?" :)
 
Eh?

In what sense does a list of things you say the police have done to friends of yours serve to back up your claim that they did something else entirely?

Criticise the cops, hold them to account - for things they have done. That you can show they have done.

Christ you do not get this, Ian is one of many The Police have either killed brutalised and kicked in, that is the point, nither is it have done but fact, this is what one is doing ie to criticise the cops, hold them to account for the murder of Ian, just look at what is comeing forword here, 3 fucking years, this is another whitewash, but hay never mind just more workingclass cannon fodder so what the fuck dose it matter, i can slag e numbers of, more fucking bullshit instead of looking at the facts.. Do you not smell it? becuase i do and this murder, as with every other police murder, brutalisation, kicking in the working class get, the order just simply closes rank adds a little whitewash and we go home happy as justice is seemed to be done.. Well not me ill never rest..
 
more fucking bullshit instead of looking at the facts..

But you're presenting conjecture as facts. While the sentence Laptop quoted may well be what many of us suspect it's certainly not a fact. And none of us have any way of proving it so you should concentrate on what you can prove.
 
But you're presenting conjecture as facts. While the sentence Laptop quoted may well be what many of us suspect it's certainly not a fact. And none of us have any way of proving it so you should concentrate on what you can prove.

it can be proven THE POLICE MURDER BRUTALISE KICK IN the working class, how the fuck is this conjecture? so it be conjecture that we say Ian was killed by the police becuase as it stands we do not hold all the facts, only what we are told by THE MURDERING SCUM OF THE POLICE THEMSELEVS, i know what how crass of me not to trust THIS MURDERING SCUM?
 
it can be proven THE POLICE MURDER BRUTALISE KICK IN the working class, how the fuck is this conjecture? so it be conjecture that we say Ian was killed by the police becuase as it stands we do not hold all the facts, only what we are told by THE MURDERING SCUM OF THE POLICE THEMSELEVS, i know what how crass of me not to trust THIS MURDERING SCUM?
If you want to know a good way to alienate ordinary folks and put them off from listening to your arguments, you can't do much better than hitting the caps lock key with gusto and repeatedly posting up wild hyperbole like MURDERING SCUM in bold.
 
it can be proven THE POLICE MURDER BRUTALISE KICK IN the working class, how the fuck is this conjecture? so it be conjecture that we say Ian was killed by the police becuase as it stands we do not hold all the facts, only what we are told by THE MURDERING SCUM OF THE POLICE THEMSELEVS, i know what how crass of me not to trust THIS MURDERING SCUM?

Mate, if you're going to act like a hysterical idiot could you not be on the same side as me please?
 
If you want to know a good way to alienate ordinary folks and put them off from listening to your arguments, you can't do much better than hitting the caps lock key with gusto and repeatedly posting up wild hyperbole like MURDERING SCUM in bold.

But come on you know this is what they are, you as much as me have seen them in action, yes i agree in context, it was more anger as some of the crass comments..
 
If you want to know a good way to alienate ordinary folks and put them off from listening to your arguments, you can't do much better than hitting the caps lock key with gusto and repeatedly posting up wild hyperbole like MURDERING SCUM in bold.
Yeah, but in mitigation - from the little I've seen of enumbers' posts it generally comes across as arising out of a genuine passion, imo.

.
 
it can be proven THE POLICE MURDER BRUTALISE KICK IN the working class, how the fuck is this conjecture? so it be conjecture that we say Ian was killed by the police becuase as it stands we do not hold all the facts, only what we are told by THE MURDERING SCUM OF THE POLICE THEMSELEVS, i know what how crass of me not to trust THIS MURDERING SCUM?

Your line of non-argument is the same as the line of non-argument that right-wing (including right-wing working-class) people use to excuse the killing of Ian Tomlinson.

The demonstrators were breaking the law and so they were criminals and we can PROVE that criminals do bad shit and he was around criminals so HE HAD IT COMING TO HIM.

See?

Stick to particular evil things that we know they did. There's plenty of them.
 
enumbers - Making stuff up alienates those who are willing to listen and are undecided. Making stuff up when you don't need to alienates everyone.
 
Your line of non-argument is the same as the line of non-argument that right-wing (including right-wing working-class) people use to excuse the killing of Ian Tomlinson.

The demonstrators were breaking the law and so they were criminals and we can PROVE that criminals do bad shit and he was around criminals so HE HAD IT COMING TO HIM.

See?

Stick to particular evil things that we know they did. There's plenty of them.

FUCK OFF stick to things we know, so now your saying that one is right wing? christ fuck me sideways, one is sticking to things we know The Police have done, you took it down this path, then i defend myself from your attack and then you move it along another path, christ next you will be telling me hug a coper because dear loves can be forgiven for killing, brutalisation and just kicking people in then allright bringing back to the subject here is what a friend has writen on The G20 Protest..

Afterwards, my friends and I met up with an acquaintance who happened to be a banker. That’s right: a banker (hey, they’re human beings too, people, come on!) I won’t name him, as I’d hate to endanger him by raising the ire of certain people - namely, his colleagues, as opposed to us protesters, who, after all, were enjoying a pint in the pub with him! Bankers have feelings, too, and in these tough times, I’m waiting for Tory leader David Cameron to abandon his “hug a hoodie” strategy and go back to his original ways of embracing bankers.

Our banker himself told us that he’d passed by the “Climate Camp” on his way to meet us and that the vibe was a peaceful one full of songs and dances and cakes - so peaceful, in fact, that he wanted to go back! So, after finishing our drinks, we accompanied him, failing to fulfill our role as freedom-hating terrorists thirsting for the blood of bankers. One of my friends had a suitcase with her, with the intention of joining the camp herself.

However, when we got there, those darned riot police had showed up again and created a blockade at both ends of the street where the camp was set up, meaning no one got in, or got out. Frustration followed for those inside, who couldn’t leave to go use a 30p London public toilet or get some overpriced snacks, and that frustration followed for us on the outside too, but we remained, in solidarity.

Then, word around the campfire (or camp) was that one man, Ian Tomlinson, had been assaulted by the police, and later died, reportedly of a heart attack. We got antsy, as more riot police arrived and squared up to us. Acting as a voice of reason for perhaps the first and last time in my life, I called for many of the protesters to “sit down,” believing myself to be a bright spark who remembered what worked as a tried-and-tested form of peaceful protest throughout history - and sure enough, a sit-in followed.

You can imagine my shock, then, when the riot police simply started punching, kicking, and swinging the edges of their shields at the seated demonstrators before my very eyes - women and the elderly included. So much for my voice of reason, which soon began to crack as I joined others in chanting “shame on you” at the police. My friend received a shield to the face and held her suitcase as a shield of her own, only to have it snatched and tossed behind the line of armored cops. We ran for our lives as they pursued us 1.6 miles up the street, pulling barriers into the road behind us in hope of salvaging some survival from police brutality - which, I expect, the media chose to catch on camera in time to show us committing “criminal damage.”http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/note.php?note_id=65718159462&ref=mf

A film about the violent policing of peaceful protest at the G20 Climate Camp in London's financial District. Roughly four thousand people, intending to camp in Bishopsgate, outside the European Climate ...

Sticking to things we know, next time ill hug a Police Man and must remeber to say hay no hassels, over the fact you killed a non protester, hay man you was only doing your job erm i think not..
 
FUCK OFF stick to things we know, so now your saying that one is right wing?

No, I am not saying that what you said is right-wing.

I am saying that in defending your error you used the same non-argument as right-wingers use.

You assumed guilt by association. Which is what those who want to excuse the killing of Ian Tomlinson do.

Fuck's sake, I was trying to help you make a decent case.

All you have to do, to make a decent case, is comment on your own blog: "Er, this bit was my guess."

Instead:

Sticking to things we know, next time ill hug a Police Man and must remeber to say hay no hassels, over the fact you killed a non protester, hay man you was only doing your job erm i think not..

You've argued yourself into a corner in which concern for the truth is the same as hugging a policeman.

As maomao said, can you please not be on my side? (Until you learn a bit, anyway.)
 
Quite frankly the stuff about Sunny Patel is stinky enough that just printing what is definitely known about him is a lot more effective than printing potentially libelous and self-defeating conjecture. Can you understand that?
 
No, I am not saying that what you said is right-wing.

I am saying that in defending your error you used the same non-argument as right-wingers use.

You assumed guilt by association. Which is what those who want to excuse the killing of Ian Tomlinson do.

Fuck's sake, I was trying to help you make a decent case.

All you have to do, to make a decent case, is comment on your own blog: "Er, this bit was my guess."

Instead:


You've argued yourself into a corner in which concern for the truth is the same as hugging a policeman.

As maomao said, can you please not be on my side? (Until you learn a bit, anyway.)

christ i go on and on, about The Police and there actions on the day of The G20 Protest, no you was not helping me make decent case, the evidance is there, guilt by association again not one Police person took of there uniform, not one Police Person come forword and spoke out, instead they all whent along with the bullshit and lies being fed over the death of Ian, not one of them has come forword about the brtalisation of those involved with The G20 protest, no for me this is guilt by association, they have chosen to put on the uniform, and as i have said, if you was there in a uniform what would you do?

Take of The Uniform?

Keep on The Uniform?


Me idd take it off, as i would not desire to be in guilt by association, each Police Person knew and acted how they with full knowledge of there actions, each coper that has not come forword is as guilty as the next one.
 
Yes I do understand this, but I also understand guilt by association, and how copers act to defend each other, there is enough to prove this, from my own direct encounters with The Police, they have beaten me, I took it all the way to court it took 3 years in a private prosecution, and I did win, it was not about the winning, but proving the fact The Police are political, a force to the biding of there pay masters, and this was very much self evident with the G20, it was to stop and demonise legal protest, The Death of Ian has if anything proven the fact we are very much in a POLICE STATE and you watch there will be a whitewash, people will lose intrest and move on, this must not be.

People have now seen the full force of THE POLICE,it doesn't matter how violent the police get, if we are working for a better world we must not stoop to their depths. Violence just breeds more violence. Have another look at the film Gandhi- that is how we should behave in these circumstances- but it will be costly and requires training. Protesters need to be more disciplined than the police. The ... Read Morepolice want protesters to be violent- that is what kettling is all about. It gives them the excuse to be violent too. We should be defiant,engage in nvda, but never violent, this is very much my feeling befor The G20 Protest, haveing been and seen how they act over 25 years, but what did it gain us?

I admire those sticking to this, fuck i would have not sat there and been beaten, but i do respect those who did, fuck i do respect them it has proven how The Police act and it very much guilt by association..
 
That puts guilt by association into context. I know you've posted similar before, but it helps to see it again here I think.

But, Laptop quoted:

the police asked him to record a ‘death by natural causes’

Isn't this speculation? As such, could it not throw the credibility of other claims in doubt? I think that's the major objection; that statements like these are counter-productive if not backed up by evidence.
 
That puts guilt by association into context. I know you've posted similar before, but it helps to see it again here I think.

But, Laptop quoted: Isn't this speculation? As such, could it not throw the credibility of other claims in doubt? I think that's the major objection; that statements like these are counter-productive if not backed up by evidence.

Is there any doubt that Steve Discombe witnessed Ian Tomlinsons attack?

It is obviously important that we are all pro-active in bringing those coppers who witnessed the brutal attack of Ian Tomlinson to justice whether they want to step forward or not.

427354.jpg


After seeing the post from the Bristle Blog ( http://snipurl.com/fqqj1) which calls for any witnesses to come forward and ID coppers from Photos and video stills captured by activists and mainstream media and extensive coverage from Fitwatch we can confirm that Steve Discombe was definitely present during the attack.

If anyone has any photos which havent been released yet of officers that were present during the attacked please make sure you send them to:

defycops(at)yahoo.co.uk warn(at)riseup.net http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/

We will publish any evidence that can out these coppers and further help justice on its way to the truth!

Netcu Watch- e-mail: warn at riseup dot net- Homepage: http://netcu.wordpress.com

It is regrettable that it falls to us to attempt to identify these officers. A truly accountable police force would have expected these officers both to publicly identify themselves, and to give an open and honest account of their actions.http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/

Unfit for purpose

Much ink's been spilt on the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson. Some of the most pressing questions haven't yet been posed by the mainstream media, let alone answered. The footage aired on C4 News on 8 April clearly shows the officer who struck and pushed Mr Tomlinson subsequently approach a member of the FIT, several of whom are shown in the film. The FIT, a number of whom are public order tactical advisers, are among the most highly trained public order officers in the Met. Questions about Mr Tomlinson's fate must, therefore, involve questions about the FIT.

The FIT are ostensibly there to establish a rapport with demonstrators. Their remit frequently involves assisting senior officers in the handling of public order situations. They provide intelligence briefings which influence the policing of demonstrations. They are meant to identify potential troublemakers. By implication, this means they are also in a position to identify people who pose no risk, and - presumably - to leave them alone. These are the official reasons for the maintenance of the Met's Forward Intelligence Teams.

But none of the FIT shown on videos on the Guardian website or C4 News seem to think there's anything wrong with the vicious assault on Mr Tomlinson. None of them remonstrate with the TSG officer who struck and pushed Mr Tomlinson. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the FIT present colluded in a conspiracy of silence during the week it took the officer who attacked Mr Tomlinson to work up the guts to approach the IPCC.

None of the FIT present seem to have been able to work out that a middle-aged man with his hands in his pockets, a man walking away from the police, was no threat. If a specialist team tasked with identifying troublemakers - according to the police themselves - cannot determine that Mr Tomlinson is not a troublemaker, then they are in trouble. What is the point in a team supposed to tell the difference between 'good' and 'bad' protesters when they so clearly can't?

http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/much-inks-been-spilt-on-tragic-death-of.html

A lot of cut and past but people must understand there all as guilty as the next one.
 
people must understand there all as guilty as the next one.

One way of summing up the point of holding the police (force) to account is to force the police (individuals) to behave like human beings - er, individuals. With responsibility for their own, particular actions.

Contrariwise, guilt by association leads to this argument:

  • enumbers is critical of the police
  • enumbers makes shit up
  • laptop is critical of the police
  • therefore laptop makes shit up too
  • and we can ignore what he says too

No thanks, mate.
 
Alegedly 4 cops have come forward as 'witnesses', nevertheless there were a heap more cops who would have witnessed the events...
If the police officers who witnessed the assault on Ian Tomlinson will not come forward voluntarily, then we ourselves must drag them into the public arena

There are some great picures and links here
 
Vaguely following on from the last few posts: there's a need to be quite forensic when it comes to getting evidence together on Ian Tomlinson's death - and there's also a need to to express more general outrage and to put it in context. It would be best if these could be kept apart, for practical purposes, but its inevitable they are going to overlap. Given that, I like the idea of Barkingmad's attempt to start putting together the facts, times and witness observations in a separate place(though, to be honest, a thread on Urban probably isn't the ideal place to do that - perhaps a blog or something similar [as was suggested] has the right layout and tools). The family solicitors will also be doing that soon, you would guess, but there's no reason the 2 processes can't go on in parallel.
 
One way of summing up the point of holding the police (force) to account is to force the police (individuals) to behave like human beings - er, individuals. With responsibility for their own, particular actions.

Contrariwise, guilt by association leads to this argument:

  • enumbers is critical of the police
  • enumbers makes shit up
  • laptop is critical of the police
  • therefore laptop makes shit up too
  • and we can ignore what he says too

No thanks, mate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tate-turned-a-blind-eye-on-Ian-Tomlinson.html

Now please do tell where you feel I have made stuff up? you asked for to source my info and one time I did not you make all this fuss, now I have done as you did ask you still come out with much the same bullshit, glad to here you are critical of the police, but I never said you make stuff up, but you did of me for a simple mistake, you can ignore what I say if you desire, sometimes the truth is not an easy thing for any of us to take, but from the point of you asking to now I have backed it up, all right you disagree, but even you must feel it is all a little fucked up, how the police are not coming foreword, how they are simply gone mute, fuck me that must be made up?

don't go shooting video footage of G20 policemen if they apparently push over a non-violent non-protester.

(or anything else that incriminates the filth) Couldn't have put it better myself.
 
You have already been asked, nicely, to go back and read what I actually wrote. Please. Do.

I have done, come on put up or shut up it is as simple as this, 25 years of being active, been involved would inform me enough of how The Police have and do act, it comes from what ive have seen been told about the death of Ian, from what direct interaction ive had with the police, a note i have been in prison, been in and out of court, to know and understand how all of this works, therefor one is happy with what i have writen and said about The Police.

There actions regards The Death of Ian are nothing i have not seen befor, FIT are The NEW SPG The Special Patrol Group (SPG) was a unit of London's Metropolitan Police Service, it was formed in 1965, to provide a centrally-based mobile squad for combatting serious public disorder and crime, along with other incidents that could not be dealt with by local divisions. During the years active, the SPG received many complaints of alleged police brutality, mostly on the Clement Blair Peach SPG was replaced by The Territorial Support Group, in 1986.

There is nothing new here, just the same old whitewash same old lies, same old guilt by association, ive seen it all befor and will no doubt see it again, what marks The G20 Protest as upfront is the utter complicity and level of Police Brutality, this is something new for myself, see them attack with such utter violence, it is therefore more than just The Death of Ian, and what ive said has been based on facts and direct experience of The Police and the violence of capitalism itself, sadly something I can speak about having been at it,s end and the one also giving it.
 
I have done

If you can and have read, then you will understand precisely what you made up in your blog.

Keywords in case you need to read once more: asked him.


I didn't mean this to be an n-page row - just to ask all posters to cite the sources for their apparently-factual allegations. Since, as others have already reminded us, this thread is about " Getting to the truth the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP" (emphasis added).
 
If you can and have read, then you will understand precisely what you made up in your blog.

Keywords in case you need to read once more: asked him.


I didn't mean this to be an n-page row - just to ask all posters to cite the sources for their apparently-factual allegations. Since, as others have already reminded us, this thread is about " Getting to the truth the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP" (emphasis added).

There is nothing made up in the blog of underclassrising it comes from as said direct experance of the police, and you are the one derailing the subject and to be frank it stinks, ive made my point and ill do my own bit by underclassrising for justice, and for Ian as i can not to be frank put up with the stink of your bullshit, and people saying ive lost the plot etc.. Well done laptop, ill just stand at the side and read your bullshit:
 
Back
Top Bottom