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

[paolo]

At the very least, it shows that the IPCC (or senior individuals) have been all too quick to state that certain lines of enquiry have to come to a close, when in fact they're far from being properly explored.

If it's not a conspiracy, it's certainly not demonstrating any healthy scepticism, which is what they should have, always.

 

[tarannau]

The head of the IPCC should resign. If you're not sure, don't make a fucking annoucement to the media.

I'd like to think that it was an innocent mistake, but with the cosy complicity of the police and the IPCC, along with their habit of misplacing video evidence and making misleading annoucements to the press, I'm really not too sure anyone has confidence in them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It took long enough... long enough for anything incriminating to have disappeared no doubt!

It'd be difficult and highly expensive to edit any footage, so it will be interesting to see if any gets "lost".

 

[ViolentPanda]

The head of the IPCC should resign. If you're not sure, don't make a fucking annoucement to the media.

I'd like to think that it was an innocent mistake, but with the cosy complicity of the police and the IPCC, along with their habit of misplacing video evidence and making misleading annoucements to the press, I'm really not too sure anyone has confidence in them.

Same old same old, though. Every "independent" officially-endorsed local or national police oversight body seems to go the same way, from good intentions straight into the arms of the institution they're supposed to oversee.

 

[mr steev]

It'd be difficult and highly expensive to edit any footage, so it will be interesting to see if any gets "lost".

Yeah. Editing would be very difficult, especially with so many other video sources to match up with.
I wouldn't be suprised if some of the cctv footage has been 'recorded over' by now though!

 

[ymu]

The head of the IPCC should resign. If you're not sure, don't make a fucking annoucement to the media.

I'd like to think that it was an innocent mistake, but with the cosy complicity of the police and the IPCC, along with their habit of misplacing video evidence and making misleading annoucements to the press, I'm really not too sure anyone has confidence in them.

It was a completely implausible lie. Either he's stupid or he thinks we are. Neither is good.

 

[e19896]

http://infantile-and-disorderly.blogspot.com/2009/04/ian-tomlinson-should-not-be-one-on.html

In today’s Independent, dearest Janet Street-Porter has an article called ‘Tomlinson was no saint, but he deserved better’, which looking at the content, could just have easily been titled ‘Tomlinson was a worthless working class alcoholic, but at least he wasn’t an anarchist’.

Maybe he also deserves to not have his private battle with alcoholism spashed across the media too, Janet. After all, he's not the one who should be on trial here. He's the unarmed man who was murdered by an armed cop. And those are the only details that matter.

 

[free spirit]

Yeah. Editing would be very difficult, especially with so many other video sources to match up with.
I wouldn't be suprised if some of the cctv footage has been 'recorded over' by now though!

yep... lots of organisations only keep cctv footage for 7 days IIRC

 

[where to]

i've lost track of this over the last few days. has anything come out of the second autopsy yet?

 

[ymu]

I think the IPCC and family have seen the report but nothing made public yet as far as I know.

 

[lopsidedbunny]

Scanned from this evening newspaper. Just click to read.





It will be intresting to see it they catch anything and which way they were pointing...

 

[shaman75]

sorry if it's been mentioned before but IPCC site says:

"Anybody who saw Mr Tomlinson in Royal Exchange Square is asked to contact the IPCC on 0800-096 9071 or email Tomlinson@ipcc.gov.uk."

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr140409_tomlinsoncctv.htm

 

[shaman75]

Found this video which is from the other end of Royal Exchange Passage, in Threadneedle Street.

It's from about 7.15pm, the time Ian Tomlinson is said to have been thrown to the ground in the first assault.

After walking up the road and atacking a couple of demonstrators with dogs, the line moves back, riot police come in from the left and the dog handlers move into the passage. Then the police all leg it in.

This might be the build up to the first contact.

 

[winjer]

Just to clarify, the pedestrianised street's called Royal Exchange Buildings, 'Passage' appears to be an invention of the IPCC. The line of cops that appears from the East at the end run up Royal Exchange Avenue, which leads off Royal Exchange Buildings to Finch Lane.

 

[cesare]

Found this video which is from the other end of Royal Exchange Passage, in Threadneedle Street.

It's from about 7.15pm, the time Ian Tomlinson is said to have been thrown to the ground in the first assault.

After walking up the road and atacking a couple of demonstrators with dogs, the line moves back, riot police come in from the left and the dog handlers move into the passage. Then the police all leg it in.

This might be the build up to the first contact.

It's also worth taking special note of 1:10 into that clip. The dog handler appears to have deliberately let the dog get within biting distance of that guy in the white top.

 

[ymu]

Oh, he quite deliberately set the dog on him - and several others were getting in a position to do so. The question is, can they be identified from that distance? They might be the same dogs as were present at the Tomlinson assault, which would make life easier.

 

[durruti02]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/apr/14/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-police

"There were at least two cameras on or beside Royal Exchange Passage. One, on the corner of Threadneadle Street, is a City of London police camera that can turn through 360 degrees. A second is affixed to Number 11 Royal Exchange, pointed at the area where Tomlinson may have been assaulted.

Anna Branthwaite, 36, freelance photog*rapher from south London, told the IPCC she saw an officer push Tomlinson to the ground at a different location on Royal Exchange Passage, moments before the assault captured in the footage.

"It was a very forceful knocking-down from behind," she said. "The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor."

A photograph taken by Branthwaite around one minute after that alleged assault shows a CCTV camera affixed to a wall in the distance.

Branthwaite has revisited the scene and taken more pictures of the CCTV camera, which she believes was pointed at the spot where she witnessed the first alleged assault.

"It's difficult to know what the lens was like on that camera," she said. "But given where it was pointed along the whole street, directed into the centre of Royal Exchange Passage, it seems likely it showed the incident I saw. That attack occurred in that vicinity."

 

[durruti02]

ex police chief says clearly attack on Tomlinson was 'an illegal act' .. so why no arrest?

 

[In Bloom]

Just saw this, sorry if it's been posted on here already:


Though some of the protesters don't exactly seem to be helping.

 

[winjer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/ian-tomlinson-g20-photographs

 

[_pH_]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/apr/14/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-police (same article as durutti links to up there ^)

Hardwick said on Thursday there was no CCTV evidence of alleged police assaults on Tomlinson. "We don't have CCTV footage of the incident," he told Channel 4 news. "There is no CCTV footage – there were no cameras in the locations where he was assaulted."

why the fuck would he say something that's so obviously not true???

well, i think I know the answer but why be so blatantly stupid?

 

[GoneCoastal]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/ian-tomlinson-g20-photographs

Yep - and look at the timings - direct contradiction of the other newspapers timings and mentions the van - as mentioned in the mail/sun etc. Except they timed it as an hour earlier didn't they ?

 

[_pH_]

Yep - and look at the timings - direct contradiction of the other newspapers timings and mentions the van - as mentioned in the mail/sun etc. Except they timed it as an hour earlier didn't they ?

and this quote:

The IT worker who took the photos said he saw Tomlinson standing in the road as the van approached. Tomlinson appeared to be in the way and did not move.

"The police van nudged the back of his legs – it was nothing hard, he wasn't knocked off balance or anything like that," he said. "He wasn't saying or doing anything wrong. He was doing no different to what we were doing – he was just stood on the side."

puts a different spin on events compared to earlier statements from the IT worker blokey

 

[GoneCoastal]

and this quote:



puts a different spin on events compared to earlier statements from the IT worker blokey

Yep again. Methinks the mail and sun should have checked the other IT workers camera to make sure the clock was correct (this has to be the same incident surely) ?

If that's the case it makes them look even more stupid (or they forgot in the rush to publish something contradictory)

 

[winjer]

Except they timed it as an hour earlier didn't they ?

Yes, I meant to write that, slip of the stylus.

 

[GoneCoastal]

Yes, I meant to write that, slip of the stylus.

No probs

 

[Wilf]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/ian-tomlinson-g20-photographs

If the grauniad's report/timings are right, it blows this out of the water:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece

It also suggests that the comments from the IT worker (Hardy - presume its a different IT worker in the Guardian? Not sure) were highly 'shaped' by the paper. For instance he couldn't have been hanging around 'for at least half an hour' as the Sun says [if the guardian's times are right] - he was filmed here at 7.10 and the final attack takes place only ten minutes later at 7.20.

Edit: ah, sorry, most of what i just said has been already covered on the above page.

 

[_pH_]

The Sun? Lying? surely not?

 

[GoneCoastal]

(Hardy - presume its a different IT worker in the Guardian? Not sure)

I was confused at first but The Guardian says it got it's footage from a publicist on behalf of an IT Worker so I'm assuming it's different people

 

[_pH_]

It's difficult to say, I've just been trying to work that out. Either it's a different IT worker or Ross Hardy's a lying fucker