G20: Getting to the truth- the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP
- Thread starter e19896
- Start date
winjer
holocene death beat
Not in full, lawyered from four minutes to 1 minute 35 seconds, as is obliquely described in the accompanying article.
shaman75
Well-Known Member
Now on 'watch again' at http://www.channel4.com/news/
so question re the Post Mortum? clearly people saw brusing on his head yet the PM results have not been released ..what is the legal thing here .. are results of PMs private? there must have been brusing to his head and his back and legs
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
I don't understand what the point of that sequence of footage was supposed to prove?
The offending police officer was shown in nearby locations in the minutes before Tomlinson was pushed to the floor - I don't see what is newsworthy about it
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
me too - apart from the bit mentioned at the end (about identifying other officers who should have come forward). The other thing the 'defence' might take from it in any future case would be 'chaotic scenes', 'officers under attack' [the single punch, which it isn't clear whether our hero actually saw]. All of which is ultimately irrelevant to him making an unprovoked attack on a man walking away.
a) "Ian Tomlinson, standing on his own, hands in pockets, under a tree" - evidence he was no threat to anyone.
b) "This footage... captures the moment when Ian Tomlinson falls on the ground [after being hit in the famous sequence] and his head appears to hit the pavement".
c) "So was this same officer in the same[?] location in the previous 10 minutes [which showed him roughly handling several protesters]? Channel 4 News believes it is".
d) "Why [did the IPCC seek to ban it]? One reason is that some officers who may have witnessed the incidents have still to be questioned - 21 days after Ian Tomlinson died."
I hope the third autopsy will be checking for cerebral bleeding.
Well done C4 News.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Those might be mitigating circumstances but they wouldn't stop a manslaughter conviction. In a way I think they could go against the officer. They go some way to explaining how he came to use such violence against Tomlinson . Rather than it appearing to be an unfortunate death of a frail man the extra video footage shows an extremely forceful smashing of Tomlinson's head against the ground by an Officer who was in the thick of the violence. it also shows how Tomlinson had been passive throughout.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
don't overlook that the video strongly reinforces the apparent fact that the cops could no way claim to have been in an edgy violent situation. everyone is running away from them (wonder why that is?). there is no suggestion of overt aggression to cause such a reaction. remember to look for what isn't present in proving what is there.
shaman75
Well-Known Member
It shows the officer taking a protester through the crowd on Cornhill, apparently in a head lock, past the police van, the door of which conveniently opens on the protester's head, something that provokes a near riot from the crowd, who peel away from the police lines and have to be controlled as they try to stop the assault.
It then shows the same officer go into Royal Exchange Buildings and assault another person, dragging them to the floor in a move that results in them being slammed on their head in the original footage (though it is stopped in the C4 version before that time).
It then shows the same officer drift up to Threadneedle Street, where I presume he is present at the dog attack, before moving back up Royal Exchange Buildings, where he assaults Ian Tomlinson and pushes him to the ground.
The same officer, three attacks, roaming around the streets lashing out, no identification, balaclava covering the face, seemingly out of control. Looking for all the world like he is trying to take on everyone and be in every place at once.
That's what I saw and it was shocking to me. Who is in charge of this officer? Who is supposed to be keeping tabs on him? It's fucking scary that this is allowed to happen.
Where was he taking that first man who's head clashed with the van door? Why drag him from the front line past all the crowd? Acting alone, stretching the resources of the police as they try to get control of a crowd witnessing something disturbing.
It then shows the same officer go into Royal Exchange Buildings and assault another person, dragging them to the floor in a move that results in them being slammed on their head in the original footage (though it is stopped in the C4 version before that time).
It then shows the same officer drift up to Threadneedle Street, where I presume he is present at the dog attack, before moving back up Royal Exchange Buildings, where he assaults Ian Tomlinson and pushes him to the ground.
The same officer, three attacks, roaming around the streets lashing out, no identification, balaclava covering the face, seemingly out of control. Looking for all the world like he is trying to take on everyone and be in every place at once.
That's what I saw and it was shocking to me. Who is in charge of this officer? Who is supposed to be keeping tabs on him? It's fucking scary that this is allowed to happen.
Where was he taking that first man who's head clashed with the van door? Why drag him from the front line past all the crowd? Acting alone, stretching the resources of the police as they try to get control of a crowd witnessing something disturbing.
Struwwelpeter
Earthling
That video sequence could be made to present the officer as a lone "bad apple". He was running around on his own causing trouble while all the others were obediently staying in their lines.
I doubt that the lack of command and control will be cited as a reason for his behaviour by any prosecutor, but we might just see a police officer sent down if they find a firm causal link between Ian Thomlinson's death and the assault, even if he is only a scape goat and distraction from the catalogue of failings from top to bottom of the police force on that day as well as other recent fuck ups.
I doubt that the lack of command and control will be cited as a reason for his behaviour by any prosecutor, but we might just see a police officer sent down if they find a firm causal link between Ian Thomlinson's death and the assault, even if he is only a scape goat and distraction from the catalogue of failings from top to bottom of the police force on that day as well as other recent fuck ups.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Yes, you are right (on the lack of threat) - give or take the punch. But equally the police are not in full control and that, I'm guessing, is the key to the officer's state of mind. He's already lost one victim (the guy he's dragging), to some extent because of the crowd that's gathering around him + he's tried to pick a fight with one other protester later on. He's feeling like the police are not fully in control and, most of all, he wants revenge on somebody. Ian Tomlinson was the poor sod who got it.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Sorry but the concept of collective responsibility applies more to forces of the state if anything than a bunch of rabble rousers (in tabloidesque) or people in the area (in actuality).
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
S'funny, given that pretty concentrated burst of cctv and cameras in the ch 4 clip, that nothing more seems to have come to light on the 'earlier attack' (the one where he was apparetly battoned on the floor). Perhaps it has come to light and it will be tomorrows release.
I suspect that if there is private security CCTV footage of that, then it'll already be in the hands of the IPCC and won't get released to the public because it would have gone from CCTV owner to the IPCC (I hope anyhow) plus if it was released I'd think that it would definitely be seen as prejudicial to a future trial
Although I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrows news is that CCTV footage exists
or indeed as you say that there is further privately (phone or camera) filmed footage(Friend of mine works for a very large company with loads of CCTV and they have to hang on to it for 30 days minimum in case a crime comes to light or in case someone does a DP Act request to review the footage)
Welllll... it was the Police Federation that asked for it... no name given.
But I reckon Cary outranks the other two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plod forum user Maverick22
I have no time for these G20 demonstrators, they can spray them all with petrol as far as I am concerned, and throw in a match, most are people just out for a fight with the police.
Does anyone know if this post is still up on Police Oracle? I can't find it anymore
Originally Posted by plod forum user Maverick22
I have no time for these G20 demonstrators, they can spray them all with petrol as far as I am concerned, and throw in a match, most are people just out for a fight with the police.
Does anyone know if this post is still up on Police Oracle? I can't find it anymore
Fuck Bees!
Bastard.
Surely one of the things that made it newsworthy is that the IPCC tried to ban it.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Very well put. We used to aim for policing by consent, and constables were people employed to help citizens enforce the law.
Constables patrolled a set beat alone and on foot. They interacted with locals on a daily basis. Doubtless you got bullies and thugs all the same, but it was riskier. Constables relied on the people around them, people who might not come to their aid if they threw their weight around.
This was done away with by "modernizers" in the 1960s. I believe that change led directly to the gendarmerie we have today.
Why do the police feel the need to array themselves with weapons and armour? Because consent is gone. Thugs aren't afraid of them, and law abiding people are made impotent, told to "jump up and down" if they see an old lady being beaten senseless. A state that despises its citizens demands the police have a monopoly on lawful force.
Look at what's been created. Police are isolated by policy, holed up in stationhouses and cars, or at most, patrol reactively in pairs, ear to the radio. They avoid informal chat with the public because they're obliged to act on "reports" of crime, even if the person just wants a comforting word. So officers band together, talk of "civilians", and the canteen culture spirals out of control. It's not a deliberate choice by officers, but an unintended and unavoidable consequence of withdrawing them from the streets.
Struwwelpeter
Earthling
Maybe I didn't express myself very well: I didn't mean that the police shouldn't be held collectively responsible but that this video could give them (the IPCC etc) an opportunity to blame the one officer (given his apparent renegade actions) and absolve the others.
newbie
undisambiguated
because those with the job of arresting criminals protected him.
nah that doesn't wash. It wasn't one bad apple causing problems for all the good apples, it was sop with the tip of the iceberg being reet unlucky that his, perfectly ordinary, behaviour happened to break the camel.
mixed metaphors are
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
I think that the context provided by the various videos taken around Royal Exchange Buildings, both at the Threadneedle Street and Cornhill ends, is enough that reasonable people might infer that the unidentified officer suspended for the assault on Ian Tomlinson was not 'renegade', and was not acting autonomously, but under direction from other, more senior, officers on the ground.
The suspended TSG officer more than once confers with other officers before and/or after a contact incident (eg the baton strike on Ian Tomlinson); those other officers, by their dress and/or behaviour appear to have some kind of operational authority, given how still more officers seem also to look to, speak to or otherwise act in a manner which suggests deference those 'operationally authoritative officers'.
Note that the suspended TSG officer - who wears no shoulder numbers, nor carries a shield - never appears to be directly facing a threat throughout the 'dog attack' and 'American tourist' incidents, does not act in concert with other TSG officers as one might expect but instead on his/her own, and positions him/herself in the centre of the police massing at these incidents until moving forward to swiftly make contact (or be capable of so doing) and then equally swiftly pulling back. That is to say that despite being - as a TSG officer - of notionally peak physical condition, and a public order specialist highly trained in 'riot control', this officer leaves the frontline of the cordon to lesser-trained officers in less protective kit.
The evidence hence implies that the idea of 'one bad apple' simply does not make sense.
(1) The deliberate and considered manner of the actions of this officer;
(2) The presence of apparently senior (in terms of operational deployment if not rank) officers;
(3) The aggressive behaviour of other officers (eg the dog handlers, the City of London officer in fire retardant boilersuit);
(4) The immediate or nearby presence of public order specialists (as well as the solo TSG officer, there were the Level 2s with shields, the suspected FIT officers, City of London CS Alex Robertson - Bronze Commander for the G20 policing operation, etc);
(5) The equipment and dress of the TSG officer when considered with that of those around him (no shield, no ID, no fellow officers from the same unit);
And so on.
Each of these points might individually be discounted, but together they form part of a compelling circumstantial case, that the suspended officer was acting in a manner consistent with practice, standing orders or ad hoc deployment by other, controlling minds.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
All I am saying is that it is the responsibility of all cops to deal with the thugs infesting the met. The Met cannot expect any respect or co-operation from the public until they show they have the integrity and guts to police their own service.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Am I the only one to see parallels between the behaviour of the unidentified suspended officer, and the cop that assaulted Nicola Fisher? I'm not suggesting that they're the same person - I'm suggesting that (from my perception at least) there's that roaming around/not part of the cordon/swooping in to take someone out aspect that seems similar.
Similar threads
