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

[xes]

goverment sponsered scum, defending goverment sponsered scum.

They can all fucking die for all i care.

 

[lopsidedbunny]

He's not on trial.

Yet.

What's the whole point of this though? ...

 

[Nice one]

I'm expecting something to come out about his previous retirement - for all of three days. There has to be something behind that. Something dodgy.

judge/coroner ruled at the start of the inquest his disiplinary/conduct record wouldn't be allowed to be known to the jury as it was "not relevant to the proceedings" (!)

On the stand harwood said he had to retire from the poice after a car accident due to ill-health. It was made known he retired on the 14 sept due to ill health then rejoined as a civilian the following monday. Confused looks by the jury. Not persued any further.

What's also damning was his refusal to answer any questions put to him by the IPCC when they interviewed him. So as far as evidence is concerned all we had was his Evidence and action book (written 45 mins after he pushed Tomlinson over) and prepared statements he presented to the IPCC instead of being interviewed.

 

[Nice one]

Basically meaning they wanted to bust some heads.

the video footage shows a continous and connnected chain of events from harwood dragging the protestor up the street, hitting a protestor with the coat of the guy he dragged up the street, pulling over a bbc cameraman, pushing with both hands a protestor along royal exchange passage before hitting and pushing over ian tomlinson. He was on a bit of a roll.

 

[ymu]

What's the whole point of this though? ...

It's an inquest. Every death in unusual circumstances gets one (apart from David Kelly).

 

[shaman75]

http://justiceforian.com/

 

[shaman75]

Right. So I was reading the transcripts from the hearings last night on the inquest site. Rather obviously gives far more detail than the media.

Only up to 31st March so far, but they are worth a read. http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/Tomlinson/HearingTranscripts/

There are also copies of the video and photo evidence on there: http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/Tomlinson/Evidence/

The video on there, that compiles CCTV images seems a lot more detailed than what I have seen in the media (or maybe I didn't look at it thoroughly)

Most interesting was the last bit, taken from the helicopter. I'm hoping to read about the testimony of the medics who were tending to Ian Tomlinson after his collapse because I can't see them doing very much at all for him.

There is also some footage in there on the ground, in which you can see and hear maybe 3 missiles land near the coppers and people shouting stop.

From reading the transcripts so far, it seems clear that Tomlinson was quite, quite drunk. So drunk that he didn't seem to be that aware of his surroundings or instructions. Many officers and witnesses have described this. Yet, at no point did any officer take it upon themselves to recognise that this placed him in a certain amount of danger and seek to assist him in getting home.

 

[DaveCinzano]

From reading the transcripts so far, it seems clear that Tomlinson was quite, quite drunk. So drunk that he didn't seem to be that aware of his surroundings or instructions. Many officers and witnesses have described this. Yet, at no point did any officer take it upon themselves to recognise that this placed him in a certain amount of danger and seek to assist him in getting home.

In Insp Williams evidence on Monday he was clear that in the briefing to him and briefings by him the issue of drunk and/or people on drugs at the demonstration was anticipated. He was clear that TSG officers understand that people so incapacitated are often incapable of understanding and/or responding quickly to even simple instructions. Mr Ryder further raised the issue, IIRC it was brought up with Harwood too.

Ryder: ...Drink and drugs - they may not understand simple instructions...
Williams: Yes.
Ryder: Every officer should know that?
Williams: Experienced officers.

 

[Garek]

Ryder: ...Drink and drugs - they may not understand simple instructions...
Williams: Yes.
Ryder: Every officer should know that?
Williams: Experienced officers.

It's comments like that from Williams that make me think the brass is willing to wash their hands of him, and in turn their own complicity.

 

[Barking_Mad]

It's comments like that from Williams that make me think the brass is willing to wash their hands of him, and in turn their own complicity.

Yup, they're going to let him swing to save their own necks and the policing system. One bad egg is all it will be.

 

[shaman75]

It's comments like that from Williams that make me think the brass is willing to wash their hands of him, and in turn their own complicity.

Yeah. There seems to have been plenty of opportunity for superiors to point out that instructions were given and that Harwood missed one of the briefings, but would have had plenty of opportunity to get the information during subsequent briefings.

But the problem I have is that Tomlinson had contact with several other officers. The general consensus each time seems to have been that he was under the influence, most likely of drink and was finding it difficult to understand instructions.

Realistically, he had little chance of finding a way around in that state, or of being mobile enough to stay out of harms way. Not one of those officers made any attempt to make sure he was safe. I think they should have done. Either by escorting him around the area, or by arresting him for being drunk for his own safety (not actually sure if they could do this or if he would have to be disorderly or what the definition of disorderly is in such circumstances).

I realise that things were tense and perhaps the police felt stretched, but I think they should have done that.

We only have to look at the disinterest by officers after he was floored by Harwood for an idea of how his welfare was ignored.

Harwood floored him. But the other officers failed in a duty of care and I'm not really sure how the Met expect to be able to explain such widespread failings on people ignoring instructions.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I notice the claim that he did not have his numbers on is actually not true. he had them stitched into the lapel of his flourecent jacket. You can just see them in this link:

http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/...F56213EF/0/Page629ChrisHarrisCHA1_DSC7595.JPG

although there is a better photo ive seen where they are clearly visible.

Here is a better view

http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/...0E6/0/Page731ChrisHARRISCHA1ch04_1409_g20.jpg

 

[DaveCinzano]

The numbers are visible on his epaulettes in several of the hi-res pictures released in the inquest evidence, though as they are silvery metal on highly reflective yellow fluorescent jacket means they are not very clear. In the original video footage it was never clear if he was wearing numbers.

In his evidence Harwood was emphatic he did have numbers on, and at no point so far (AFAIAA) has suggested they came off.

Harwood: "I always have my numbers visible, it is Met policy.... [It was a] new jacket issued - I used pins and clips to attach [my numbers]."

Harwood: "[At the beginning of the day I was wearing] Flame retardant suit, Met vest, with numerals, other uniform underneath, with numerals... [but] jacket not on, it was in the box with my flat hat."

 

[strung out]

what kind of cunt says numerals instead of numbers?

 

[Barking_Mad]

The numbers are visible on his epaulettes in several of the hi-res pictures released in the inquest evidence, though as they are silvery metal on highly reflective yellow fluorescent jacket means they are not very clear. In the original video footage it was never clear if he was wearing numbers.

In his evidence Harwood was emphatic he did have numbers on, and at no point so far (AFAIAA) has suggested they came off.

Harwood: "I always have my numbers visible, it is Met policy.... [It was a] new jacket issued - I used pins and clips to attach [my numbers]."

Harwood: "[At the beginning of the day I was wearing] Flame retardant suit, Met vest, with numerals, other uniform underneath, with numerals... [but] jacket not on, it was in the box with my flat hat."

Ah, so he says he pinned them on, but the ones on the pics are different. I see.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Ah, so he says he pinned them on, but the ones on the pics are different. I see.

Different to what?

 

[DaveCinzano]

what kind of cunt says numerals instead of numbers?

A Roman cvnt?

 

[Crispy]

234 is a number
two, three and four are its constituent numerals. so ner.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yup, they're going to let him swing to save their own necks and the policing system. One bad egg is all it will be.

I wonder about that. I'd be extremely surprised if he faces manslaughter charges, which in my opinion he clearly should, let alone gets convicted on them.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Different to what?

It looks as if those on his jacket are permanently fixed to it (as some officers had complained that the other type came off). But he says he pinned his numbers on(?)

 

[Kaka Tim]

I dont think he'll face charges for manslaughter - 'insufficient evidence to secure a conviction' - as you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that PC savage's assault led directly to the injuries that killed him rather then being one of a number of factors.

However could the met be sued by the family for corporate manslaughter or criminal negligence? That would mean that senior officers would have to account for their tactics on the day - kettling, the breifing encouraging 'robust policing', the lack of any duty of care for the protestors, the assault on the climate camp and the large number of well documented assualts by the police on the public.

 

[laptop]

We only have to look at the disinterest by officers after he was floored by Harwood for an idea of how his welfare was ignored.

Does anyone who's following the inquest in detail know whether Officer Savage has been asked whether he thought Tomlinson was part of the protest?

 

[Barking_Mad]

It's disgusting and embarassing, really embarassing.

Ryder says:

We are all looking at the video – everybody in the room is looking at the video. And I'm asking you a very simple question. When you pushed him, did he have his back to you, yes or no?"

After some confusion, with Harwood declining to answer, the judge intervenes. He asks him personally whether he had his back to the officer at the point of the push. Harwood replies: "No."

Ryder: "You're lying, PC Harwood, I suggest. And you know it."

Harwood: "No, I am just trying to help."

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Another gem from Constable Savage:

Ryder says:

As a Metropolitan police officer are you are telling us that your training says that that if someone represents no threat to you and not threat to another person, you are entitled to baton them?


Harwood replies:

Depends on the circumstances."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates

 

[Garek]

Another gem from Constable Savage:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates

"It's a lie! The evidence has been falsified! It's impossible! I never broke the law, I AM THE LAW! "

 

[butchersapron]

How exactly do you 'pull someone away from yourself'?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Hmmm?! my bold

Harwood has been read out an earlier statement he gave investigators, in which he said Tomlinson's stance indicated "he was going to stay where he was, whatever happened". In this previous statement, Harwood said Tomlinson was "almost physically inviting a confrontation".

Harwood is asked if he still believes that was true. He replies: "Yes."

But yesterday he was asked...

Ryder: "We have all seen the video, how you push him and follow through, and we have heard from everyone else who was there as to how they perceived it. You have told us today that you didn't perceive Mr Tomlinson as a threat to you; correct?"

Harwood: "Yes."

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hmmm?!



But yesterday he was asked...

It's consistent if you think not showing instant deference to the wishes of the police is the same thing as 'physically inviting a confrontation' ...

 

[nick h.]

Does anyone who's following the inquest in detail know whether Officer Savage has been asked whether he thought Tomlinson was part of the protest?

One of his colleagues said she thought he wasn't a demonstrator when he asked the officers to let him through the line moments before the push

PC Kerry Smith was part of a police line clearing a street in the City of London on the evening of April 1, 2009 when she saw another officer – since identified as PC Simon Harwood – push Ian Tomlinson to the ground.

The inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death was told that in a statement written a month after the incident, she said: "I was shocked by the forcefulness of the push on Mr Tomlinson."

She added: "However I do not know what the officer had seen or heard prior to pushing [him]."

PC Smith said that moments earlier, Mr Tomlinson had asked to come through police lines as they moved down Royal Exchange Buildings – a pedestrianised street between Threadneedle Street and Cornhill.

"He said he wanted to get through and pointed to the line behind us," she told the inquest. "I told him no. I did point towards the south east corner so going up towards Bishopsgate, as an alternative direction."

Mr Tomlinson wasn't aggressive or swearing, PC Smith said. "He didn't seem rude, as such."

Asked if he appeared to be a demonstrator, she said no. "He didn't appear to be shouting or chanting, he didn't appear to be with anyone else, so I didn't think he was a demonstrator."

From http://www.channel4.com/news/ian-tomlinson-inquest-police-officer-shocked-by-push

 

[laptop]

One of his colleagues said she thought he wasn't a demonstrator when he asked the officers to let him through the line moments before the push

From http://www.channel4.com/news/ian-tomlinson-inquest-police-officer-shocked-by-push

Ta.

Someone should ask Harwood. Could be revealing of his attitudes. Paging Mr Ryder...