Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Yep, Harwood shouldn't be made the scapegoat. The police as a whole think that aggression is the right way to deal with protests. The politicians have handed them laws to use that confirm that their role is to deal harshly with protests. I think it would be better for Harwood to be in prison than not, but we should blame a lot of people for Tomlinson's death, not just one man.
 
this wasn't one bad apple acting recklessly on his own. This should really result in charges relating to the way senior police behaved before during and after the event. Something about corporate manslaughter and attempting to pervert the course of justice perhaps. But there's even less chance of that than there is of topcat losing his bet.

Indeed. Remember the initial statement from the Met, stating that Mr Tomlinson had had no contact with the police prior to his collapse?
 
Someone this thread, I can't remember whom stated that Harwood was, "Unlucky. Guilty, but unlucky". I think that sums it up nicely.

Overjoyed to see the verdict of "unlawfull killing". Excellent news.
 
Indeed. Remember the initial statement from the Met, stating that Mr Tomlinson had had no contact with the police prior to his collapse?

Which if it hadn't been for citizens with cameras, they would have been able to get away with.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have found any evidence on CCTV to contradict that initial position.
 
Quite interesting to read this Guardian story in retrospect as a reminder of how the police and their political allies tried to spin the story for the best part of a week, right up until the point that incontrovertable video evidence of the attack appeared.

It began with an anodyne press release from the Metropolitan police more than three hours after Ian Tomlinson died. It ended with a police officer and an investigator from the Independent Police Complaints Commission asking the Guardian to remove a video from its website showing an unprovoked police assault on Mr Tomlinson minutes before his heart attack.

In the space of five days through a combination of official guidance, strong suggestion and press releases, those responsible for examining the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death within the City of London police and the IPCC, appeared to be steering the story to what they thought would be its conclusion: that the newspaper vendor suffered an unprovoked heart attack as he made his way home on the night of the G20 protests.

Late last Friday, after investigators from the IPCC had spoken to detectives from City police, the commission which claims it is the most powerful civilian oversight body in the world, was preparing to say it did not need to launch an inquiry into the deathduring one of the most controversial recent policing operations.

But the release of the video by the Guardian this week, which revealed Mr Tomlinson was subjected to an unprovoked attack by a Met riot squad officer minutes before he died, has forced the IPCC to step up to the demand that it launch a full independent inquiry.

"They have caught a real cold on this," said a senior source. "They were very slow, they clearly didn't think anything was wrong and they didn't look for it. Sometimes they just don't seem to be very independent."
G20 assault: how Metropolitan police tried to manage a death
 

Police official statements and briefings seemed to have discouraged others from looking into the story, and the Met and City of London police press offices are currently under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

I think there was a lot of briefing. My seniors at the paper were being told there was nothing in the story, and I should lay off. The Tomlinson family’s police liaison officer personally told me that my articles were upsetting them. (I later found out this was untrue.)

interesting ...
 
Press Gazette (today):

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is set to reveal within days whether it thinks the Met Police deliberately misled the media after the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protest in London on 1 April, 2009.

The IPCC investigation was triggered by allegations that police officers and press officers at the Metropolitan Police Service and City of London Police briefed the media against pursuing the story and attempted to cover up details of Tomlinson’s death.

...The IPCC confirmed to Press Gazette that its report will look into whether any offences were committed by police officers or communications staff in connection with media handling, and whether they complied with “media protocol agreed between the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)”...
 
While they're there, could they please ask the City of London coroner who appointed Patel, and then later recused himself on the grounds that he has no fucking idea how to deal with suspicious deaths, whether or not any CoL or Met police officers had any influence on his decision not to request a special PM, for which Patel could not have been rostered as he was not contracted to do them?

The City of London doesn't see many suspicious deaths. Hence the original coroner withdrawing amidst the furore. We haven't heard enough about this yet. It would be common practice for more experienced colleagues to advise, and the police are probably the only source of information he had to base his decision on. Sudden death amidst a summit protest should automatically require a special PM, ffs!
 
While they're there, could they please ask the City of London coroner who appointed Patel, and then later recused himself on the grounds that he has no fucking idea how to deal with suspicious deaths, whether or not any CoL or Met police officers had any influence on his decision not to request a special PM, for which Patel could not have been rostered as he was not contracted to do them?
He didn't appoint Patel, Patel was a resident pathologist at St Pancras which was handling all CoL PMs at the time, CoLP requested the PM be upgraded and Patel was on the Home Office register. Whether his registration had failed to be removed or was down to him providing false information to the NPIA is not entirely clear from differing news reports, although it's clear he falsely told the GMC he was part of a group practice, a requirement for the HO register.
 
I know that, winjer. It's got nothing to do with what I posted.

Patel could not have been appointed to do a special PM because he did not have a Home Office contract at the time. He got the gig because he was on routine call and it was treated as a routine natural death by the coroner from the outset.

I'm asking how in suffering fuck was it not a special PM when a death happened at a protest of a type where protesters have been killed in the past and where the police were making wild predictions of violence beforehand.

The CoL coroner later took himself off the job because they just don't get many suspicious deaths in the CoL and he had no clue what he was doing (paraphrasing, but it's what he said himself). So who helped him make the extraordinary decision not to request a special PM? And even if he took no advice from others, what information did he base that decision on if not what the police told him about the circumstances?
 
He was on the Home Office register, so he could do a special PM. See, e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705

Firstly, there are lots of conflicting versions of that story, and the one you posted is clear as mud - I've not seen anything conclusive that says being on the register of accredited pathologists is the same thing as having a current contract with the Home Office to do special PMs. I'm an accredited expert with one of my clients, but I still have to renew my contract before I get to do any more work for them.

Secondly, and rather more pertinently, Patel got this PM because he was rostered on duty for routine PMs that night. I want to know why this was done as a routine PM. It's got fuck all to do with Patel - I want to know why the coroner assumed no suspicious circumstances, from the information available to him at the time.
 
This is one of those 'right for all the wrong reasons' sorta things I think.

Britain's most senior police officer has denied making a "fall guy" out of Simon Harwood, the officer found to have unlawfully killed Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests.

Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police commissioner, was accused by the Ulster Unionist peer Lord Maginnis of being prepared to "surrender" PC Harwood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/05/tomlinson-harwood-fall-guy-stephenson
 
Clear cut case!

Doesn't hurt getting that thought into the headlines though, eh?
 
Looks like a damage limitation/pass the buck exercise is being implemented:-

Senior police were told 48 hours after Ian Tomlinson's death that officers had witnessed a colleague push him to the ground at the G20 protests, but the information was withheld from the police watchdog.

The Guardian can reveal that three constables reported seeing Tomlinson being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground four days before video footage of the incident emerged.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is now investigating why information provided by Metropolitan Police constables Andrew Moore, Kerry Smith and Nicholas Jackson was not passed on to its investigators......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/ian-tomlinson-evidence-held-back
 
Back
Top Bottom