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

[nick h.]

Did you not see the video of the dog attack? It's very real.

Hadn't seen that. Nasty wound. But it's one of the few examples of police violence I've seen where the phrase "he was asking for it" is 100% accurate. He wanted to be bitten so he could show off for the cameras. There's no other explanation for what he did. Unless he's from Mars and doesn't know what a dog is.

 

[GoneCoastal]

As I understand it the main reference point is the ACPO guide to keeping the peace

Available here
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/keeping_the_peace.pdf

Last bullet point on page 27 of that is interesting

"The police commander should encourage officers not to treat all crowd members in the same manner. When violence starts there is a tendency to treat everybody with hostility. However, especially in such situations, it is crucial to treat people with respect and win them to your side, not the side of those already promoting conflict. It may be necessary to facilitate the desires of the many, such as the wish to peacefully protest, so that they may assist the police with their overall intention which is to prevent disorder"

 

[winjer]

As I understand it the main reference point is the ACPO guide to keeping the peace

That's the FOI-friendly abridgement, you want the 'Public Order Manual of Tactical Options and Related Matters', or whatever they call it these days.

 

[ymu]

Hadn't seen that. Nasty wound. But it's one of the few examples of police violence I've seen where the phrase "he was asking for it" is 100% accurate. He wanted to be bitten so he could show off for the cameras. There's no other explanation for what he did. Unless he's from Mars and doesn't know what a dog is.

He is very obviously "asking for it". The matter of concern, however, is that a dog-handler on the sidelines decided to give it to him.

 

[editor]

Hadn't seen that. Nasty wound. But it's one of the few examples of police violence I've seen where the phrase "he was asking for it" is 100% accurate. He wanted to be bitten so he could show off for the cameras. There's no other explanation for what he did. Unless he's from Mars and doesn't know what a dog is.

I'm don't believe it's against the law to gesture at a police dog, and I'm hearing a distinct lack of a verbal warning from the cop in charge of that vicious dog.

The protester was being a bit of an arse, but the police response was needlessly violent and thoroughly unwarranted - like many of their actions that day.

He is very obviously "asking for it". The matter of concern, however, is that a dog-handler on the sidelines decided to give it to him.

Absolutely. It was a completely disproportionate response. The guy wasn't attacking or threatening the cops at all.

 

[editor]

The thisislondon article quoted earlier really underlines the cops' requirements to have their numbers on display. It's excellent news that right wing papers are now running this story and making the public aware of the issue. Even the Tories have piped up to agree!

Mr Malthouse said: “The policy of the Met Police is very clear. The public have the right to be able to identify any uniformed police officer and so badges should be worn at all times. We support the Commissioner's decision to hold officers to account when they purposely conceal their identity.”

The Home Office also criticised officers who fail to wear their epaulettes, insisting the “public has a right to be able to identify” them.

A Home Office spokesman said: “We welcome the Commissioner's statement that all uniformed police officers should be identifiable at all times by their shoulder identification numbers, and wholly agree that the public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officers while performing their duties.”

A Yard spokesman said: “Where provided, epaulettes with identifying letters and numerals or insignia of rank must be worn and must be correct and visible at all times.

“It is the responsibility of all police officers, and their supervisors, to ensure this policy is followed.”

But there was no statement from the commissioner, who is now facing a mounting crisis over his leadership.

A member of the Metropolitan Police Authority said the problem of officers failing to wear their shoulder numbers had been going on “for some time” and “serious questions” will be raised over the issue.

Cindy Butts said: “I see no good reason why they should obscure their numbers from members of the public.

“We have pushed for the Met to have officers wear their names on their uniforms so at the very least they should be wearing the shoulder numbers.”

She added: “This has been an issue that's been going on for some time. The Met need to explain why this is happening and I certainly will be putting those questions to them.”

Today there were calls for the officer's immediate suspension and more questions over Sir Paul's leadership of the force, already engulfed in crisis since the death of Ian Tomlinson, 47, who had a heart attack during the G20 riots after being pushed and struck with a baton by a masked officer.

Senior politicians warned there is no place in Britain for “secret police”.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: “The police just can't take their numbers off because they are in difficult policing situations. In the end, if there are complaints, it will just make matters worse for them.”

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne added: “Sir Paul Stephenson has made it clear that no British officer should be ashamed of their uniform or their identification. It now looks as if his orders are being flouted. There is no place for secret police in Britain.”

 

[Citizen66]

To those who think he was 'asking for it'.

Place it in the context of the pub. If you got a bit lippy with someone and they left then returned with their staff bull terrier and set it about mauling you, is that acceptable behaviour?

If not then why should it be acceptable for someone to do it just because they're wearing a uniform?

Especially as being lippy isn't even an arrestable offence (although I'm sure the cop could have conjoured up some charge or other to haul the guy off to the cells as opposed to having him bitten).

 

[editor]

To those who think he was 'asking for it'.

Place it in the context of the pub. If you got a bit lippy with someone and they left then returned with their staff bull terrier and set it about mauling you, is that acceptable behaviour?

If not then why should it be acceptable for someone to do it just because they're wearing a uniform?

Or, to put it more in context: if you got a bit lippy with someone and they left and then returned with hundreds of their mates, some of them masked up, and then set their staff bull terrier on to maul you, is that acceptable behaviour?

 

[free spirit]

The thisislondon article quoted earlier really underlines the cops' requirements to have their numbers on display. It's excellent news that right wing papers are now running this story and making the public aware of the issue. Even the Tories have piped up to agree!

all those quotes are just words, they need to change the law to make it a legal requirement for all police officers in uniform to wear their numbers at all times, including when in riot gear.

it's not like this guy was the only one to not wear his numbers, it's been Met (or at least Met TSG) standard operating procedure for years for their officers not to display their numbers when dealing with protests.

I remember the 2000 mayday kettle of traf square, where the only officers with their numbers on display were the ones in command... every single officer in the first 3 rows of police - ie several hundred had removed their numbers. When I questioned them about this, the standard reply was that there was no legal requirement for them to display their numbers... i say standard reply because it came pretty much word for word from several different coppers on totally different sides of the kettle, which means that they had all been briefed, and that the removal of their numbers was officially sanctioned.

The met even did it in scotland at the G8 despite it being illegal under Scottish law.

nothing will change until the law changes, and the politicians are the culpable ones here, not individual coppers, or even the met as an organisation. It's the politicians who set the legal framework that allows this to happen. They have let it continue for decades precisely because it occasionally suits them to have the police batter people when they look like being a bit of a threat... eg the miners, travellers, anarchists, ecowarriors etc.

The blood is on the politicians hands

 

[free spirit]

To those who think he was 'asking for it'.

Place it in the context of the pub. If you got a bit lippy with someone and they left then returned with their staff bull terrier and set it about mauling you, is that acceptable behaviour?

If not then why should it be acceptable for someone to do it just because they're wearing a uniform?

Especially as being lippy isn't even an arrestable offence (although I'm sure the cop could have conjoured up some charge or other to haul the guy off to the cells as opposed to having him bitten).

or a doorman who punched someone because they'd got a bit lippy on the door.

that officer moved deliberately towards that protestor with their dog deliberately left on a long leash to enable the dog to attack the protestor. It was a deliberate attack by that copper on the protestor, just as much as it would have been had he walked over and smacked the guy over the head with a baton. these are highly trained dogs controlled by highly trained handlers, and the handler is entirely responsible for the actions of the dog.

eta ie that footage shows an assault by that police officer, and he should be arrested and charged accordingly

 

[JTG]

They have let it continue for decades precisely because it occasionally suits them to have the police batter people when they look like being a bit of a threat... eg the miners, travellers, anarchists, ecowarriors etc.

And I would add to that, football supporters

 

[London_Calling]

The thisislondon article quoted earlier really underlines the cops' requirements to have their numbers on display. It's excellent news that right wing papers are now running this story and making the public aware of the issue. Even the Tories have piped up to agree!

The copper wasn't even policing a protest, it was a vigil ffs.

Fwiw, I'm told there's a vid on YouTube of an Inspector refusing to display his number, which adds to the belief this is part of an operational culture.

 

[cesare]

The BBC have been covering Nicky Fisher this morning but they've also been showing footage of Ian Tomlinson's last minutes. I'm particularly struck by the lack of police being pelted with bottles etc when they go over to his aid.

Fucking liars.

But then, anyone that's watched the youtube footages from the outset knew that anyway.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Or, to put it more in context: if you got a bit lippy with someone and they left and then returned with hundreds of their mates, some of them masked up, and then set their staff bull terrier on to maul you, is that acceptable behaviour?

To add yet more context;

if you got a bit lippy with someone and they left and then returned with hundreds of their mates, some of them masked up, and then set their staff bull terrier on to maul you, before they jogged a hundred yards down the road to attempt to do the same to some other random with his hands in his pockets, his back to them and walking away, then one of them beat him with a club, knocked him to the ground and then wandered off, whilst the rest of his mates didn't say or do anything, and then a short while later the random guy dies of internal bleeding, is that acceptable behaviour?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ceriainly. You'll get passed from regional ro regional force, from level to level and so on. If there's a national statutory requirement they make/made it hard to find

I've written to:
Sir Ronnie Flanagan (yes, himself from the RUC!),
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary,
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary,
c/o
HMIC,
Ground Floor,
Ashley House,
2 Monck Street,
London,
SW1P 2BQ
asking for clarification on any statutory requirement(s) for uniformed officers to display their identification numbers, and the legislative/regulatory source points for these statutory requirement(s).

Perhaps a few other Urbanites might address similar inquiries to himself?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

To add yet more context;

if you got a bit lippy with someone and they left and then returned with hundreds of their mates, some of them masked up, and then set their staff bull terrier on to maul you, before they jogged a hundred yards down the road to attempt to do the same to some other random with his hands in his pockets, his back to them and walking away, then one of them beat him with a club, knocked him to the ground and then wandered off, whilst the rest of his mates didn't say or do anything, and then a short while later the random guy dies of internal bleeding, is that acceptable behaviour?

Perfectly acceptable, natural causes.

Until film of it was produced and a 2nd post mortem was carried out.

 

[DaveCinzano]

"Isolated incidents"

"Momentary loss of composure"

"Overstretched police officers"

"Doing a good job in difficult circumstances"

"We should not let one tragic accident overshadow x, y or z"

And on, and on, and on.

 

[Corax]

and then set their staff bull terrier

Oi! Staffies have the sweetest temperment in the world! I've often been incredibly amused to see 'hard' looking folks strutting about with a Staffy, only to look thoroughly embarassed when it proceeds to lick everybody to death.

Edit: Actually Citizen 66 who brought the nanny dog into the metaphor.

 

[AKA pseudonym]

Channel 4 news are saying:

@krishgm We also have significant new info on the Tomlinson case - but can't reveal until 6.30 on air

 

[Ae589]

What society do you want to live in whereby those who taunt the police are mutilated?

Looked to me like the police tried to steer that dog onto him in order to make a point - completely disproportionate use of violence, and the police officer should be prosecuted. Is the man himself a hero for putting himself at risk to prove the police are out of control, or a f*ckwit who runs at police dogs and goads them so he can then run around shouting how unfair it all is?

I'm sure you can guess what I think

 

[Donna Ferentes]

If the penalty for being a fuckwit were to be bitten by a dog, a lot of people on this forum would be posting standing up.

 

[Ae589]

If the penalty for being a fuckwit were to be bitten by a dog, a lot of people on this forum would be posting standing up.

Because their chair had been stolen by a dog?

There is no contradiction between thinking this is violent overeaction by the police and thinking the guy is a fuckwit in the first place. I would support the criminal prosecution of this officer (based on evidence we've seen, probably), and I would also choose to talk to someone else if I met this guy a at party. Especially if he kept getting his arm out.

 

[cesare]

Looked to me like the police tried to steer that dog onto him in order to make a point - completely disproportionate use of violence, and the police officer should be prosecuted. Is the man himself a hero for putting himself at risk to prove the police are out of control, or a f*ckwit who runs at police dogs and goads them so he can then run around shouting how unfair it all is?

I'm sure you can guess what I think

The protestor was a complete fuckwit imo - you really really don't deliberately provoke German Shepherds just in case a lead slips or something. But no such 'accident' appeared to happen. It'd be useful to see it frame by frame.

 

[ymu]

It wasn't that German Shepherd that attacked him. Another officer brought his dog in to "punish" the guy. It looks like officer CP788, the same officer involved in the second dog attack which occurred 4 minutes before the videoed attack on Tomlinson, at which CP788 is also present.

 

[cesare]

It wasn't that German Shepherd that attacked him though.

Think of the German Shepherd as a baton, but much more dangerous and with less control over it.

 

[ymu]

Yes. And his handler clearly sets the dog on the guy - he kind of swings it in on a long leash. The dog that bit him was not the dog being taunted - it was doing what it was told to.

 

[Corax]

If police dogs aren't trained to bite/not bite on command, I'd be fucking surprised.

They* ain't quite as smart as a Collie, but not far off. The dog will only bite if put in that 'stance' by its handler.

*Police dogs. The filth themselves are some way off being as smart as a Collie, as anyone who's seen the entrance exam material would testify.

 

[cesare]

Yes. And his handler clearly sets the dog on the guy - he kind of swings it in on a long leash. The dog that bit him was not the dog being taunted - it was doing what it was told to.

I doubt the handler instructed the dog to attack. Enough to let the leash out.

 

[Corax]

I doubt the handler instructed the dog to attack. Enough to let the leash out.

I can't find any sources, but I'm certain that the dog needs to be put into attack stance. They aren't just randomly savage.

 

[winjer]

Fwiw, I'm told there's a vid on YouTube of an Inspector refusing to display his number, which adds to the belief this is part of an operational culture.

They don't have numbers to display though, he should have been asked for his name.