Video reveals G20 police assault on man who died

[Disillusioned]

Article. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault)

Very worrying... disgraceful police actions.

[z-]

fairly caught out there eh

[stargalaxy]

It's no wonder the Government wants to prevent people photographing the police. I wonder what will happen to the copper in question - will he be held accountable for his actions? You can already guess what the answer to this will be.

I notice the words "Full investigation in tomorrow's Guardian" at the bottom. I await with interest to see what more they have.

[JsT]

What a disgrace, Mr Tomlinson was clearly causing absolutely no trouble whatsoever to anyone. All I wanna know is why did the police baton a clearly innocent individual?

[JavaKrypt]

Well my believe of the polices' statement story is well and truely burnt. Hope that police officer gets brought to justice.

[Flashman's Ghost]

If it led to the heart attack the peeler should be charged with manslaughter

[Aspire]

A little bit unrelated to the topic, but I just wanted to say that I've been to a fair few illegal raves in my time and the riot police are, 9 times out of 10, just your average thug in police gear.

I've openly seen riot police officers shout out rude and insulting terms to people and use very unnecessary force a fair few times. From my experience the Welsh riot police seem to be the worst for this.

Regarding the G20 topic, I feel sad to say that I'm not surprised and even sadder to know that nothing will be done about it.

[sneer]

Ive seen non-riot cops behave in such a way.

Even one pushing a young female so forcefully she flew backwards and hit the ground after trying to get to her ?boyfriend who was pinned to the ground by cops.

They don't seem to always be able to control their actions in the heat of the moment - which I would have thought would be a huge part of their training.

Sickening.

[Aspire]

Sickening is the key word there mate and I'm glad you can relate to what I've said.

The unfortunate problem is, in these kind of situations, that it's your word against theirs and you can probably guess who the court is more likely to believe. Hopefully this video evidence will bring some form of justice forward.. but going by previous experience I doubt it will :(

[I'm With Stupid]

Sickening is the key word there mate and I'm glad you can relate to what I've said.

The unfortunate problem is, in these kind of situations, that it's your word against theirs and you can probably guess who the court is more likely to believe. Hopefully this video evidence will bring some form of justice forward.. but going by previous experience I doubt it will :(
Nah. The video evidence is fairly conclusive as far as the actions of the police thug are concerned. The only question now should be the post mortem. If that reveals that his death was related to this incident, that's manslaughter. If not, it could still be assault. Pushing a man in the back, especially one who is obviously drunk, and has no way of breaking his fall due to having his hands in his pocket has to be assault in my book.

[Whowhere]

Well, I can admit when I'm wrong. Whoever this cop is, he doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.
It's one thing using a baton on someone facing you, threatening you or throwing stuff at you.

Doing it to someone walking away.....

[Kermit]

You see filth like this in every town in the country on a Saturday night. My cousin's been battered several times; being diabetic, she sometimes looks drunk so the police hit her once, hit her again for luck, and only then ask questions.

Still, this murder ('cause that's what it is- commit GBH that kills someone and it's murder) can just join a long list of police thuggery and brutality that has resulted in death. Hillsborough anyone?

[Martin_Bashir]

Flashman
If it led to the heart attack the peeler should be charged with manslaughter

And with the greatest respect I hope this will lead you to re consider the fact that force, like the type used against Ian Tomlinson, should not be used unless totally neccessary; which means in the presence of genuine threat or further violence.

You never know who is vulnerable (we can't see inside people after all), there was far too much of this going on on bishopsgate and at bank. The kettles and force used were far too arbitrary.

[Lumber Joe]

That's so sad. People in the crowd lose control. Not only the demonstrators, but also the police.

[dellboy1983]

But I do not believe there is much wrongdoing here. Fact is, the police are not respected or feared in this day and age which - in my opinion - they should be.

I fully support that police SHOULD be allowed to use force to control thugs, protestors, drunks, general troublemakers. A polite "can you move along please" should obviously be attempted first, but then what are they supposed to do. A push, a shove, a whack to the legs with a baton.. all perfectly warranted actions if you ask me if the person in question does not cooperate.

Many a time I have been out on a night out and witnessed tussles and fights break out between drunken revellers, many of whom - im sorry to say - are absolute scum. Destroying our once great nation turning it into a crime filled danger zone. In my opinion, this is down to three things. Parenting, Schooling, and human rights gone mad - meaning the police are unable to do their job without fear of being brought up for treating someone unfairly.

In this particular case, I can see why it has caused many people to be outraged. I am as deeply saddened by the man losing his life as anyone, and my sympathy's go out to his family and friends. I concede his death was ultimately probably brought upon by the fact he was pushed over by the police. Although also caused by a huge piece of misfortune and bad luck.

When I see the video footage, I see a possibly drunken individual, clearly NOT cooperating with the police. Im not saying he is a criminal or doing anything PARTICULARLY wrong, but none-the-less, he was in no hurry to get out of their way. Especially when he could clearly see there was a large protest going on and the police were trying to do their job controlling it. There he is, ambling along, even stopping at one point - hands in pockets. Im sure the police asked him to move along, and at one point in the footage, it looks to me like the man stopped to say something to the police. Maybe we will never know what was said. But he could well have swore obscenities at the officers.

It is very unfortunate that this man died as a result of a push to the ground.. 999 times out of 1000 this would not end in death. In this case it appeared as though it has. But the police officer obviously did not mean the gentleman any harm. He was using force to get him to move on.

If the police officer involved is indeed charged with assault or worse, then what is that going to do to our already 'pushover' police force. They will have no choice but to think carefully before even pushing a troublemaker during a riot - IN CASE OF INURING THEM. It't not their fault. Just the way they are forced to behave.

I just think the police force should be allowed to use force to make their presence felt. & I would love it if the day came when police were feared and respected again...

...and chavs no longer sought ASBO's as a type of accolade amongst their friends.

Thanks

[Whowhere]

Looking at the facts as we have them, the cop pushed someone over for absolutely no reason. A few minutes later, long enough for the poor chap to walk around a corner, he had a heart attack.

Was the cop totally out of order? Yes, utterly.
Did the cop cause the man's death? Who knows. If he'd died from a blow to the head then probably. A heart attack? It's not something normally associated with being pushed over, but it's something we're going to have to wait to find out.


Whatever happens, the man is a disgrace to the uniform. Like I said before, it's one thing using force to arrest someone or to quell a riot. Pushing someone like that is uncalled for, if he'd said/done something illegal he should have been detained and arrested, something they could have done quite easily as they weren't surrounded by protestors at that moment.

[ShyBoy]

But the police officer obviously did not mean the gentleman any harm. He was using force to get him to move on.


amongst the rest of the conjecture in your post, this is the worst bit. How do we prove if he meant the guy harm or not? We can't assume because he's a police officer he's oing what he's trained to do etc. - they are human and lose their rag like anyone else, and the stories of police venting their frustrations at the protests are all over.

I think any inquiry will revolve around that really, was the police officer merely following his training and it's just an unfortunate incident, or was it a case of this PC losing his temper and venting this in a physical way because he can?

[z-]

When I see the video footage, I see a possibly drunken individual, clearly NOT cooperating with the police. Im not saying he is a criminal or doing anything PARTICULARLY wrong, but none-the-less, he was in no hurry to get out of their way. Especially when he could clearly see there was a large protest going on and the police were trying to do their job controlling it. There he is, ambling along, even stopping at one point - hands in pockets. Im sure the police asked him to move along, and at one point in the footage, it looks to me like the man stopped to say something to the police. Maybe we will never know what was said. But he could well have swore obscenities at the officers.

It is very unfortunate that this man died as a result of a push to the ground.. 999 times out of 1000 this would not end in death. In this case it appeared as though it has. But the police officer obviously did not mean the gentleman any harm. He was using force to get him to move on.

and what if he wasnt in such a hurry to get out of their way .. he was still moving forwards. also, i don't see how shoving someone with such force that their going to topple over to the ground infront of you gets them out of sight any quicker..

he didnt mean him any harm? he shoved him face first to the ground when his hands were his pockets, was hardly rational and called for

if the man did die as a result of that push the policeman should go down for manslaughter and ill be glad to see it, i could go on all day about instances of police brutality that absolutely fuck all has been done about .. at least time they're caught red handed and shown nationwide!

its nothin but a case of the police getting 'trigger-happy' ..

[Yerascrote]

But I do not believe there is much wrongdoing here. Fact is, the police are not respected or feared in this day and age which - in my opinion - they should be.

I fully support that police SHOULD be allowed to use force to control thugs, protestors, drunks, general troublemakers. A polite "can you move along please" should obviously be attempted first, but then what are they supposed to do. A push, a shove, a whack to the legs with a baton.. all perfectly warranted actions if you ask me if the person in question does not cooperate.

Many a time I have been out on a night out and witnessed tussles and fights break out between drunken revellers, many of whom - im sorry to say - are absolute scum. Destroying our once great nation turning it into a crime filled danger zone. In my opinion, this is down to three things. Parenting, Schooling, and human rights gone mad - meaning the police are unable to do their job without fear of being brought up for treating someone unfairly.

In this particular case, I can see why it has caused many people to be outraged. I am as deeply saddened by the man losing his life as anyone, and my sympathy's go out to his family and friends. I concede his death was ultimately probably brought upon by the fact he was pushed over by the police. Although also caused by a huge piece of misfortune and bad luck.

When I see the video footage, I see a possibly drunken individual, clearly NOT cooperating with the police. Im not saying he is a criminal or doing anything PARTICULARLY wrong, but none-the-less, he was in no hurry to get out of their way. Especially when he could clearly see there was a large protest going on and the police were trying to do their job controlling it. There he is, ambling along, even stopping at one point - hands in pockets. Im sure the police asked him to move along, and at one point in the footage, it looks to me like the man stopped to say something to the police. Maybe we will never know what was said. But he could well have swore obscenities at the officers.

It is very unfortunate that this man died as a result of a push to the ground.. 999 times out of 1000 this would not end in death. In this case it appeared as though it has. But the police officer obviously did not mean the gentleman any harm. He was using force to get him to move on.

If the police officer involved is indeed charged with assault or worse, then what is that going to do to our already 'pushover' police force. They will have no choice but to think carefully before even pushing a troublemaker during a riot - IN CASE OF INURING THEM. It't not their fault. Just the way they are forced to behave.

I just think the police force should be allowed to use force to make their presence felt. & I would love it if the day came when police were feared and respected again...

...and chavs no longer sought ASBO's as a type of accolade amongst their friends.

Thanks

You are full of shit. Nothing else to add.

[sneer]

But I do not believe there is much wrongdoing here. Fact is, the police are not respected or feared in this day and age which - in my opinion - they should be.

<snip>
I just think the police force should be allowed to use force to make their presence felt. & I would love it if the day came when police were feared and respected again...

Fear? You actually think that the police should be feared?

Feared by law abiding citizens? Feared by those that they are there to protect?

I don't think fear is ever an appropriate feeling towards the police.

[Jim V]

If people can just remember to avoid insulting other users, no matter how different their views may be to others.

[Aspire]

That's fair enough Delboy, BUT you can clearly see in the video that the bloke in question was moving away from the scene.

The police are there to protect and serve, launching innocent people for no reason is not something that they're allowed to do. Even if the person in question didn't die (which you say 999 times out of 1000 I agree is true) it's still awful to watch. These people are supposed to be the ones you rely on when trouble kicks off.

I didn't see the bloke causing a scene, or going against the police, he was literally walking away! He wasn't rioting or throwing any objects so why did they have to use such force?

I personally don't think our police are such pushovers, I reckon the reason criminals or law-breakers get off so lightly is because of out-of-touch-with-the-real-world judges with no common sense and because of over-crowded prisons. I have witnessed riot police in action a fair few times and I still stick by my comment that they are just your average thug with police gear on.

I feel this bloke was co-operating with police as you can kinda see they've told him to move away and he was walking to where he was told to go. Granted, you can tell he was probably drunk and moving pretty slowly but that doesn't deserve getting the treatment he did. Some of these people get overwhelmed by the power trip, I believe it's a bit like meeting a prick bouncer at a club.

[Wyetry]

I've been up to a policeman to ask for help because there was a car on fire only to be chased by him whealding a batton for several hundred meters down a side alley before witnessing him repeatedly hitting an unarmed man over the head whilst myself and my best friend cowered in door way hoping that he wouldnt' hit us as well. Later in the same day i had the police refuse to call an ambulance for someone who had fallen over and seriously cut their leg open.

Sooo tbh in not entirely suprised at all by the action of the police in this instance - i'm more suprised that they bothered to give him CPR after he collapsed...

[sneer]

I have to say I'm not that suprised either.

If you have ever been on a protest you will know that the majority of protesters are not interested in causing damage or attacking the police, sadly you they do attract some that are interested in that kind of activity. You would probably also know that the police can be rough, heavy heanded, unreasonable, provocative.

Now that the officer that pushed Mr Tomlinson has come forward it will be interesting to hear the justification for his actions, I'm sure there will be an attempt to justify it. In my eyes, there isnt any though.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Flashman
If it led to the heart attack the peeler should be charged with manslaughter

And with the greatest respect I hope this will lead you to re consider the fact that force, like the type used against Ian Tomlinson, should not be used unless totally neccessary; which means in the presence of genuine threat or further violence.

You never know who is vulnerable (we can't see inside people after all), there was far too much of this going on on bishopsgate and at bank. The kettles and force used were far too arbitrary.

I always believe that force shouldn't be used except when neccessary :confused: I'm not sure I've ever said anything else - I've seen violence its in full form and am not a romanticiser of it.

However, I accept it has to be used. And when it has to be used I'm a believer it should be used in such force as to quell the problem - anything else is a false humanity which just leads to force going back and forth causing continual suffering.

[Martin_Bashir]

My point was in this case your previous comments suggested that you thought the police violence at the G20 protests was largely justified, even when others stated that it was disproportionate to what happened on Bishopsgate and a number of areas at Bank.

I think you were right to be a little skeptical of claims of police violence but it has been frustrating for those of us who always knew this was the case to have come up against a wall of 'well they deserved it' (which you didn't say or imply I hasten to add) and 'well regrettably the police had no other option' (which was my interpretation of your view).

Anyway this isn't meant to be a dig at you or your view on the policing (or indeed to represent anything you said as particularly unreasonable; I don't agree and I think the evidence will prove me right in this case, but I in no way meant to imply anything you stated was unreasonable).

It was just that I wondered if those who had now changed your view on the situation, as evidence is now emerging not just of what happened to Ian Tomlinson but of the repression of the press

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/08/g20-protest-police-apology-photographers

And when the documentation that is being prepared gets to the House you will see the use of anti-terror legislation on bystanders at Bishopsgate to get the public to delete images of police.

Incidentally I am the last person who would (even if I wanted to, which I wouldn't) be able to say 'I told you so' about Ian Tomlinson. I went to Bank the day after on my lunch break to see people posting placards with 'Police Murderers' on the Monument, which I condemned to everyone I saw and praised the police because as far as I was concerned, he died of natural causes and they had to stand there and take this.

No the police weren't anything like the Genoa crowd at the G8; they were the hired thugs of a corrupt Italian politician, from a police department with an entrenched and long running history of fascism (literal, not perjorative). But we hold our police to a higher standard, or what is there to defend?

Like I said before, there are two sides to the Police and their tactics. The one here in question is the boot boys, who love a good row, and the commanders, who talk up a fight, manipulate the media, use repressive laws and powers out of context, mount cover ups, then try to act all pious and apologetic when things go wrong.

The mad dog doesn't just need to fall over this, so do the men who let him loose and tried everything to let him get away with it.

[dellboy1983]

Maybe I should rephrase the 'fear the police' comment i mentioned...

Respected by law abiding citizens, feared by thugs.

Too many times have I seen police officers insulted, assaulted, or had their vehicles attacked with missiles. Just for patrolling their beat.

It would be good for the country if thugs, chavs, vandals, troublemakers etc were actually afraid of the police.

I know I am deviating away from the main story here, but I was just clarifying that point.

Back to the G20 attack story...

At the end of the day it is very difficult to tell exactly what happened and was said from that video evidence we have.

If indeed the man was getting out of the way, and did not do OR say anything to provoke the police, then I concede that the police officer did act harshly and there wasnt any need to push him over like that.

..However my final point to say is... if you saw a protest going on, and a group of riot police... would YOU go and walk right into/in front of, the police?? Shields, batons, dogs et all. Even if it was on your route home.. go a different way! I know I would.

[Jim V]

I think there's an issue with where he was - wasn't he first heading up towards the RBS building after a day selling newspapers. He came across the cordon that had just been put in place and turned around and walked back the other way?

He was was pushed over at the end of the road from the RBS heading away from the cordon. So it's concievable that he was actually trying to walk home a different way then what we saw was him walking away.

[dellboy1983]

Yes indeed.. we cant really tell... if he was trying to go a different way home / get out of their way then fair play.

It just doesn't look that way to me from the video.

He looks to me like he is one of these assholes I frequently see when asked to move along by police just say;

"i can walkdown here if I like, you cant tell me what to do" etc etc...
asking for trouble.

If that isn't the case then fair enough. Im just saying, you cant really tell what happened. Im just going on what I see in the video.

[Martin_Bashir]

Yes indeed.. we cant really tell... if he was trying to go a different way home / get out of their way then fair play.

It just doesn't look that way to me from the video.

He looks to me like he is one of these assholes I frequently see when asked to move along by police just say;

"i can walkdown here if I like, you cant tell me what to do" etc etc...
asking for trouble.

If that isn't the case then fair enough. Im just saying, you cant really tell what happened. Im just going on what I see in the video.

I can appreciate your underlying point - that the police don't have a deterrant affect upon anti-social behaviour and are seen as ineffective in preventing it.

I think that the argument is badly misplaced here, not just on the Tomlinson tragedy but on large parts of the policing of the G20 protests (not the entirety, even in these circumstances one should remember that some sections of the police did do a good job, and that they ARE capable of doing a good job as shown on the Saturday march).

It's all to do with a type of cop - the anti-social thugs you are railing against aren't just spitting on the uniform, some of them are wearing it.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-video-ian-tomlinson-death

It just gets worse - before the video came out people were queuing up to discredit all protester accounts, to claim that it was an indymedia conspiracy, to roll out the standard line that the Police did 'a good job in difficult circumstances they did what had to be done etc...'.

People worthy of such confidence do not need to obscure their faces and identity tags when performing a public service.

There's more to come on this and we haven't even touched Bishopsgate yet.

[I'm With Stupid]

Whatever happens, the man is a disgrace to the uniform. Like I said before, it's one thing using force to arrest someone or to quell a riot. Pushing someone like that is uncalled for, if he'd said/done something illegal he should have been detained and arrested, something they could have done quite easily as they weren't surrounded by protestors at that moment.

See, now this is the issue that I have. We can all accept that the occasional bad apple in public services. The bigger issue is the seemingly institutionalized covering up of misdoings in the police force, particularly in these sort of us vs. them situations. How many complaints about abuses by police officers are filed by police officers themselves who witnessed events? I suspect very few. Why should it be up to the victims to file a complaint afterwards, while a load of police officers look on and watch the abuses happening? If I get assaulted by a random person on the street, and a police officer sees it, I don't have to wait until the person has finished the assault, and file a complaint the next day. He'll be rightly arrested straight away. Why do I have to do this if the person committing the assault is a police officer? It shouldn't just be the officer who committed the assault who is suspended, it should be the ones that saw it and did nothing about it too.

[Flashman's Ghost]

The simple answer would be that they're human...

A complex one would be that the small-unit dynamics of stressful jobs which require teamwork and physical and mental toughness need to produce an 'us against the world' mentality (and often in things like policing and soldiering you are in situtations where it is a real 'us against them' because you're the ones called into deal with things when they go wrong). And in any succesful group you deal with things internally, rather than 'ratting' out to your bosses or even worse outsiders.

The more important question is how far does a civilised society tolerate it? It may be fine to say zero tolerance, but in reality you will then get a police service (or army) which is fundamentally ineffective and that may not be the best result for society...

[Martin_Bashir]

The more important question is how far does a civilised society tolerate it? It may be fine to say zero tolerance, but in reality you will then get a police service (or army) which is fundamentally ineffective and that may not be the best result for society...

A very good framing of the question IMHO, no institution is perfect and a certain amount of pragmatism is obviously essential.

I would say however that in this case there isn't nearly as much of the inevitable 'us and them' dynamic as one might imagine - they weren't faced with an angry mob in all quarters, but chose to escalate the situation to a confrontational one by changing the deployment of officers when the situation was well in hand.

What that week's policing showed, in my view, was that the police are capable of policing large demonstrations in a effective but non-violent manner...what happened was they badly misjudged the type of policing, and as a result involved far too many pumped up, undisciplined and ill-mannered thugs in the operation, when a great many (I saw and spoke with them) reasonable, diplomatic and sensible officers were on hand.

The police as a whole did not do a uniformly bad job, but the organisation must bear (RBS notwithstanding) the brunt of the blame for the inflammatory tactics, intimidation and wanton thuggery that a number of officers displayed that day.

[JavaKrypt]

Just heard on BBC three, the copper in the video was suspended.

[Flashman's Ghost]

A very good framing of the question IMHO, no institution is perfect and a certain amount of pragmatism is obviously essential.

I would say however that in this case there isn't nearly as much of the inevitable 'us and them' dynamic as one might imagine - they weren't faced with an angry mob in all quarters, but chose to escalate the situation to a confrontational one by changing the deployment of officers when the situation was well in hand.

What that week's policing showed, in my view, was that the police are capable of policing large demonstrations in a effective but non-violent manner...what happened was they badly misjudged the type of policing, and as a result involved far too many pumped up, undisciplined and ill-mannered thugs in the operation, when a great many (I saw and spoke with them) reasonable, diplomatic and sensible officers were on hand.

The police as a whole did not do a uniformly bad job, but the organisation must bear (RBS notwithstanding) the brunt of the blame for the inflammatory tactics, intimidation and wanton thuggery that a number of officers displayed that day.

Possibly, though other demos have shown that the police are perfectly capable of dealing with large demos of peaceful protesters. However, groups which sing 'Harry Roberts is my friend' and who were riled up by organisers saying there might be real bankers hanging from lamposts are, almost by definition, going to make top level peelers rather worried about their capacity for violence.

especially as only a few months before the protests against Gaza resulted in an underprepared police force being pushed back and large undisciplined crowds causing a large number of injuries, both deliberate and accidental.

You could also argue that the large number of police in riot gear stopped the violence by persuading those who were out for trouble that they were going to loose.

[Martin_Bashir]

However, groups which sing 'Harry Roberts is my friend' and who were riled up by organisers saying there might be real bankers hanging from lamposts are, almost by definition, going to make top level peelers rather worried about their capacity for violence.

Only ever heard that at football to be fair (certainly not at any of the demos I have attended), and to be honest if we're gonna talk of 'riling up' the Met had been publicly talking this up and preparing City and citizenry for WW3 or about six months. They also banned several protest groups from attending press conferences to put their side of the story. No bankers harmed, and RBS was the only thing hit. Not good, not lawful, not acceptable - but not WW3

especially as only a few months before the protests against Gaza resulted in an underprepared police force being pushed back and large undisciplined crowds causing a large number of injuries, both deliberate and accidental.

Different group, different tactics; they'd policed big demos by the groups they knew (because they'd been told in advance) would be acting in particular ways, which they did.


You could also argue that the large number of police in riot gear stopped the violence by persuading those who were out for trouble that they were going to loose.

You could argue that, but there is more evidence to argue that by changing tactics in situations where things were well in hand - property not life was in danger - they did something far more damaging; erode public trust in their ability to handle things in a manner consistent with the democratic society they police.

This argument is supported by previous evidence of the conduct (at Kingsnorth) of people, particularly those on Bishopsgate, who in previous actions have never even been accused of committing violence, although a massive propaganda (I can find no other acceptable word) campaign had been mounted to suggest that violence could ensue.

Of course it didn't, and the only demonstrable agitation, intimidation and violence at Kingsnorth came from the police side - for example; we KNOW that they listed officer injuries in a manner which implied they had received them on site, only to have to retract these later as preexisting injuries. We KNOW they made 'confiscations' of 'weapons' later found to be a bike lock and sundry household items, including a copy of the War on Terror boardgame <hides copy under bed>.

You could argue that this stopped the violence, but you could do that only in completely morally ambiguous terms - it is only the same thing as saying that any excessive force is deployed with the effect that it precludes any possibility of resistance, and if that is an acceptable tactic then we lose a great deal more in terms of social and political welfare than is gained.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Only ever heard that at football to be fair (certainly not at any of the demos I have attended), and to be honest if we're gonna talk of 'riling up' the Met had been publicly talking this up and preparing City and citizenry for WW3 or about six months. They also banned several protest groups from attending press conferences to put their side of the story. No bankers harmed, and RBS was the only thing hit. Not good, not lawful, not acceptable - but not WW3.

To be honest I'd like to see evidence they stopped protest groups from attending press conferences - as opposed to saying they couldn't hold their press conference in a particular place. And yes the police had been saying this could be a big one, but that's because various protest groups were also bigging things up.




Different group, different tactics; they'd policed big demos by the groups they knew (because they'd been told in advance) would be acting in particular ways, which they did.

Perhaps there is a lesson if you want a peaceful protest there, co-operate with the police and don't suggest bankers may end up hanging from lamposts. If you want a peaceful protest there is no reason why you shouldn't co-operate with the peelers, better for all involved - bystander, the police and the demonstrators...


You could argue that, but there is more evidence to argue that by changing tactics in situations where things were well in hand - property not life was in danger - they did something far more damaging; erode public trust in their ability to handle things in a manner consistent with the democratic society they police.

This argument is supported by previous evidence of the conduct (at Kingsnorth) of people, particularly those on Bishopsgate, who in previous actions have never even been accused of committing violence, although a massive propaganda (I can find no other acceptable word) campaign had been mounted to suggest that violence could ensue.

Of course it didn't, and the only demonstrable agitation, intimidation and violence at Kingsnorth came from the police side - for example; we KNOW that they listed officer injuries in a manner which implied they had received them on site, only to have to retract these later as preexisting injuries. We KNOW they made 'confiscations' of 'weapons' later found to be a bike lock and sundry household items, including a copy of the War on Terror boardgame <hides copy under bed>.

You could argue that this stopped the violence, but you could do that only in completely morally ambiguous terms - it is only the same thing as saying that any excessive force is deployed with the effect that it precludes any possibility of resistance, and if that is an acceptable tactic then we lose a great deal more in terms of social and political welfare than is gained

The peelers are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't (which isn't to say mistakes aren't made). If they'd let the crowd damage property that has an awful propsentity to turn to them damaging any people caught inside that property or who they don't like (and to be honest the police have a duty to stop undemocratic and unaccountable groups smashing things up). I would argue that by failing to deal with organisations which act unlawfully, there is much wider damage to society; not least in encouraging small, unpopular groups to claim the streets, which then have to be reclaimed for the public by the police.

This doesn't mean you should baton someone who is walking by with their hands in their pockets, but illegal protesters shouldn't be given a free ride to do what they like.

[Martin_Bashir]

To be honest I'd like to see evidence they stopped protest groups from attending press conferences - as opposed to saying they couldn't hold their press conference in a particular place.

Not what I meant - what I meant was the Met were holding press conferences, Camp for Climate Change Action contacted them several times in open letters and through an MP, and the Met refused to allow them into that press conference.

And yes the police had been saying this could be a big one, but that's because various protest groups were also bigging things up.

Different contexts - the size of the protest was never in doubt, and the number of officers needed isn't something I'm really able to comment on - what I'm getting at is the constant 'WARNING! WARNING! dress down, lock up daughters, DANGER WILL ROBINSON! etc. that kept coming out of the Met.

Perhaps there is a lesson if you want a peaceful protest there, co-operate with the police and don't suggest bankers may end up hanging from lamp-posts. If you want a peaceful protest there is no reason why you shouldn't co-operate with the peelers, better for all involved - bystander, the police and the demonstrators...

But this is what we've all been saying all along - groups such as the aforementioned made active moves, for months, to cooperate with the police, to provide them with information, to enter into dialogue, and it was the Met who refused. There is no 'lesson' for the protest movements here, but there could be an uncomfortable one for the police.

Co-operation was going on all day on Bishopsgate, the police were completely unmolested as was everyone else including the many city workers who felt comfortable enough to walk through the place.

If you had actually been down there on the line and seen the way that the police who turned up after seven were swearing and threatening people just standing around, I doubt you would pick out the protesters as the ones incapable of cooperation.

I would argue that by failing to deal with organisations which act unlawfully, there is much wider damage to society; not least in encouraging small, unpopular groups to claim the streets, which then have to be reclaimed for the public by the police.

This doesn't mean you should baton someone who is walking by with their hands in their pockets, but illegal protesters shouldn't be given a free ride to do what they like.

How is there 'much wider damage to society' and please tell me where conclusive evidence exists that action on Climate Change is unpopular, apart from in the boardroom of Shell?

The Countryside Alliance demo was decidedly unpopular, and not a little rowdy, however I wouldn't for a second suggest that they should be denied the right to take up a street, in the capital, for a day, to make their point (which by the way, I fundamentally disagree with on hunting).

[sneer]

The whole use of the 'summer of rage' thing before hand was provocative and practically encouraging people to go along and misbehave in my opinion.

Someone (elsewhere) seemed to suggest that the purpose of the 'summer of rage' was to put off protesters that wouldn't be interested in violence and the like. I think it did the exact opposite.

Probably the media are more to blame for that though?

[Flashman's Ghost]

Not what I meant - what I meant was the Met were holding press conferences, Camp for Climate Change Action contacted them several times in open letters and through an MP, and the Met refused to allow them into that press conference.

I'm not sure that's unusual - the Tories tend no to let Labour MPs into their press conferences, the Government doesn't invite its critics and I'm guessing Camp for Climate Change Press conferences don't allow speakers from Shell



Different contexts - the size of the protest was never in doubt, and the number of officers needed isn't something I'm really able to comment on - what I'm getting at is the constant 'WARNING! WARNING! dress down, lock up daughters, DANGER WILL ROBINSON! etc. that kept coming out of the Met.

It wasn't the size, it was the fact that some groups wouldn't co-operate. To be fair some did, but then they're not the ones the peelers were worried about.


How is there 'much wider damage to society' and please tell me where conclusive evidence exists that action on Climate Change is unpopular, apart from in the boardroom of Shell?

I have no conclusive evidence, though I would point at the petrol protests, the number of people flying and the low support for the Green Party to suggest this is not a movement with mass popular support

The wider damage to society is that unelected groups seek to overturn the democratically elected Government's decision by use of violence and threat of violence (against people or property). This is different from groups picketing their MPs, marching in the streets or trying to persuade voters to support a particular view...

The Countryside Alliance demo was decidedly unpopular, and not a little rowdy, however I wouldn't for a second suggest that they should be denied the right to take up a street, in the capital, for a day, to make their point (which by the way, I fundamentally disagree with on hunting

Could you then point to why the Countryside Alliance demo was unpopular (it was the second largest demo ever seen in this country I believe). But even though I don't care about hunting, but believe people should have freedom to do what they want, the police were right to deal with those who moved from peaceful protest to unlawful violence

[Martin_Bashir]

Could you then point to why the Countryside Alliance demo was unpopular (it was the second largest demo ever seen in this country I believe). But even though I don't care about hunting, but believe people should have freedom to do what they want, the police were right to deal with those who moved from peaceful protest to unlawful violence

It was unpopular in the sense that the public perception was that a majority of those who were involved were supporting hunting as the main trust of the 'Liberty and Livelihood' march, where around 10% were thought to been either involved or have a stake in hunting with dogs. The majority of the points that were delivered to number 10 on the petition were to do with the assault on sustainable rural living by increasingly centralised forms of bureaucratic control in Westminister.

The parallel between them and the G20 is that despite this being the message, the image was of a march on hunting with dogs, which was only one of a much greater number of more pressing issues. The image was unpopular in the same way that the G20 protests were represented as a majority of brick-happy revolutionaries who were intent on overthrowing the state (and unpopular action) - when the breadth of message and opinion and action was not this at all.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/john-jackson/2009/02/11/liberty-and-livelihood

Oh and while we're on them - how's this for anti-democratic actions, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/nov/01/ruralaffairs.hunting. Slightly beyond 'know thy enemy' into the territory of private health records, mental health status etc...

It wasn't the size, it was the fact that some groups wouldn't co-operate. To be fair some did, but then they're not the ones the peelers were worried about.

Yes but they represented the vast majority of those who were there and once again I draw attention to the example of Bishopsgate - full co-operation, advance warning, dialogue, no history or intent of violence.

I have no conclusive evidence, though I would point at the petrol protests, the number of people flying and the low support for the Green Party to suggest this is not a movement with mass popular support

In order; the petrol protests were mainly about tax on a commodity that made economic activity for workers particularly difficult, this cannot be pointed to as being against action on Climate change.

The number of people flying - again, depends; people don't generally get on a plane to screw the climate, what motivates action is usually the perception of danger or some other motivating factor. Ignorance isn't consent, even though it does have that effect.

The Green Party - are not the arbiters of Climate change policy, support for them in no way a conclusive barometer of support for climate change action.

The wider damage to society is that unelected groups seek to overturn the democratically elected Government's decision by use of violence and threat of violence (against people or property). This is different from groups picketing their MPs, marching in the streets or trying to persuade voters to support a particular view...

Never a serious or credible threat of this happening at all, didn't represent the intention or will or action of the majority of protesters.

[lea_uk]

Wouldn't do what?

[JavaKrypt]

The police are there to "protect us", or so they say.
Fearing them would make no difference and is the wrong way to go.

[sneer]

No he is right, police should be feared, very feared. If people knew that a police man could walk right up to him and knock him out with a stick, then they wouldn't do it.

genius, pure genius!

If the police had guns that would be even better - they could just kill crims there and then :cool: :cool: :cool: :thumb:

[Whowhere]

They wouldn't commit a crime...

Tbh no one would ever assault a police officer or attempt it...
The Govt needs to make the Police feared.



I disagree completely.

I get my job done because I'm respected. I'm known by nearly everyone in a town of 10,000 people because I'm fair and I act propotionately to things.

If I were feared I'd never get anything done, I'd never get any information about anything and nobody would do anthing I ask them without me having to resort to violence. The last time I actually used violence of any sort was when I had to arrest a violent shoplifter who was threatening to stab me and my colleague with a needle and that was 4 months ago.

The government needs to allow local police to act autonomously without inteference, once local people see them become more effective at dealing with crime in ways that benefit them, they will respect them more.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson

It just gets worse - this is going to do serious damage to public confidence in the police - already not outstanding in some quarters - which is no good for anyone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/11/g20-ian-tomlinson-death

Oh and Marina Hyde has got it bang on in my view here - 'put enough cameras on the police and even the serially deferential wake up'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/11/police-surveillance-marina-hyde

[Jim V]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson

It just gets worse - this is going to do serious damage to public confidence in the police - already not outstanding in some quarters - which is no good for anyone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/11/g20-ian-tomlinson-death

You normally seem quite reasoned Martin, so what is it that bothers you about the pathologist? I've just read through that story and to me it reads like an appalling piece of political spin.

You seem to be agreeing that public confidence will be damaged because the pathologist once chose to reveal information about a police cover-up? Surely that should give more confidence in the legitimacy of a case.

As to the comments by David Howarth - I can only feel shame that a politician, with absolutely no medical or scientific evidence can decide how legitimate a post-mortem is. There's nothing about how quickly it was carried out that has been suggested as illegitimate, just that a second post-mortem should be carried out in the light of new evidence.

For me this shows how little politicians and journalists care about Ian Tomlinson, all that matters now is keeping the story in the newspapers - no matter what yellow journalism needs to be used or what completely irrelevant issue can be dragged up to keep it there.

[Kermit]

I think the Guardian's article about the pathologist was a poor piece of journalism but it does raise questions about the competence of the pathologist. The guy probably did die of a heart attack after severe trauma, but why the hell didn't the pathologist notice all the bruising and damage to the back? It's an important question that needs to be answered.

Police should only be respected if their actions warrant respect. My grandfather was a very well respected bobby (so much so that people still talk about him fondly now, 20 years after he passed away) because he was fair and reasonable and firm. Many police officers understand that being fair and reasonable is how you get the job done on an individual level, but sadly this doesn't happen when it comes to crowd management. It never has done.

The only shock with this story is that people are shocked. Anyone who's been to a football match know what the police are like with crowds they don't like. Ask any bobby for his name or number in this situation, for whatever reason, or ask for help and you won't get it, unless they really are called 'fuck off you fucking cunt'.

96 people died in Sheffield because of the police's attitudes to crowds and now, 20 years on, people are still dying because of it. The attitude is endemic when it comes to crowd control and I don't ever see it changing.

I don't believe that the individual officers are evil but collectively the police have an attitude that you hit first, hit second and hit third. Being reasonable doesn't come into it.

[Martin_Bashir]

You normally seem quite reasoned Martin, so what is it that bothers you about the pathologist? I've just read through that story and to me it reads like an appalling piece of political spin.

You're bang on about Howarth, and to be honest this shouldn't be the top story on their (The Guardian's) main page however, if you look at the conditions under which he made the comments that led to his GMC reprimand in 1999, he divulged information that could prejudice the investigation AGAINST the man who had died, not for the Police (by revealing that he had been a user of Crack Cocaine, but giving no further details).

I think Howarth's got no place sticking his nose in - 'I thought this was too quick' :rolleyes: how the hell would he know?

But I do think there is something here worth reporting - if it's a coincidence, then it's a coincidence that he was used instead of the standard team for suspicious deaths. Also I have first hand knowledge from my professional life that some Dr's with GMC reprimands go on to have completely successful careers after that, so this is in no way a smoking gun of any kind.

Yes there are aspects of bandwagon jumping going on here, unfortunately this was always going to happen, but I can't say that it isn't worth reporting.

People are and were still jumping the gun - I went to Bank the day after he died and watched blackhooded 17 year olds posting 'Met Murderers' placards on the statue before even I thought there was any police involvement - and whether they are proved right or not is irrelevant to the fact that they'd made up their minds before due course had been followed.

I was thinking about going to the memorial march today, and work has made the decision for me unfortunately - I think there are two aspects to this however; there is the fact that a particular man died, and his death should not be exported into other contexts or causes over which he has no control and had no involvement, that's just a given.

But there is a general point arising from his death, about the safety of all of us from this kind of violence - according to the Marina Hyde article, 1000 deaths in police custody over the last 30 years - that's 1 every 10 or so days - and I do think that this is a watershed in the large degree of deference the police have received on their use of violence and coercion in this country.

I don't believe that the individual officers are evil but collectively the police have an attitude that you hit first, hit second and hit third. Being reasonable doesn't come into it.

What he said; apart from the fact that from what I saw, there are one or two officers who love the prospect of a large row (one in which they are armoured and armed) a little too much.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7997990.stm

This could well be an honest mistake (and no evidence to contrary at present), but the rush to provide such detail so soon after the incident doesn't instill confidence in process.

I am however at somewhat of a loss as to who in modern Britain could possibly believe that there are no CCTV cameras in such a central area of our capital city....

[Kermit]

The IPCC shouldn't be commenting until the investigation has been completed. I think it shows that they're just wanting it to be swept under the carpet. If that stockbroker (how ironic!) hadn't filmed it happening, and the Guardian hadn't run with the story, it would have been swept under the carpet.

It's a pretty bum deal when the watchdog is siding with the police and taking the police version of events as gospel.

[Aladdin]

This would be quite funny if it weren't so fucking wrong...

http://img245.imageshack.us/my.php?image=policemedic.jpg


In other news, another copper has just been suspended for hitting a woman during the protests

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7999277.stm


If there was the will to examine all available footage from the day, many, many more cases would be unveiled. Of course, there is no political will to do so.

All those of you who said at the time 'well done to the police for tackling those crusties etc etc' (yawn), do you still the police did a good job? Or will it take a bunch of Middle England tories getting the shit beaten out of them for you to see things differently?

[Whowhere]

Or will it take a bunch of Middle England tories getting the shit beaten out of them for you to see things differently?




Didn't a bunch of Middle England Tories get the shit kicked out of them during the hunt protests........

[StupidGirl]

The IPCC shouldn't be commenting until the investigation has been completed. I think it shows that they're just wanting it to be swept under the carpet. If that stockbroker (how ironic!) hadn't filmed it happening, and the Guardian hadn't run with the story, it would have been swept under the carpet.

It's a pretty bum deal when the watchdog is siding with the police and taking the police version of events as gospel.

Richard Offer, Head of Media at the IPCC from 2004 - 2008, has written this in the Guardian today...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/ipcc-police-protests

Thoughts?

[Jim V]

The guardian round-up that's goring round -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/15/g20-protest-police-videos-catalogue

[Aladdin]

I find it particularly disturbing that the officer suspended for assaulting the woman had covered/removed his identification number. Premeditation to thuggery much?

I also find it quite hilarious that the Met police chief initially claimed there was no CCTV footage available to study the various incidens of alleged police brutality. No CCTV footage available. In the City of London. Yeah right. :rolleyes:

[Kermit]

Thoughts about the IPCC head's comments?

Firstly, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Secondly, if they're so open and honest and fair, why was the IPCC's first action to call at the Guardian's offices to demand the videos be taken from the website?

Thirdly, to Aladdin: it wasn't the head of the Met who said that, it was the IPCC's own fucking spokesman.

[Jim V]

I find it particularly disturbing that the officer suspended for assaulting the woman had covered/removed his identification number. Premeditation to thuggery much?


Nah, that's standard proceedure for at least the last 15 years. Although when you're on a march and suddenly a hundred policemen cover their ID and put on leather gloves it doesn't usually bode well...

But plenty of non-violent Police would have done the same. Which is not to say I think it's right, just that it doesn't reveal as much as you might think it would.

[Aladdin]

Thirdly, to Aladdin: it wasn't the head of the Met who said that, it was the IPCC's own fucking spokesman. I stand corrected. That's actually a lot worse of course.

But then, the very idea of an organisation 'independently' investigating itself has always seemed a fallacy to me.

[Flashman's Ghost]

I stand corrected. That's actually a lot worse of course.

But then, the very idea of an organisation 'independently' investigating itself has always seemed a fallacy to me.

That's why they set up the IPPC....

[sneer]

Nah, that's standard proceedure for at least the last 15 years.


Are you saying that they are supposed to cover up their ID number?

[Jim V]

I'm saying they don't come with lapels to cover their numbers by accident...

[Flashman's Ghost]

I'm saying they don't with lapels to cover their numbers by accident...

Well that clears that up....;)

[Aladdin]

On a related note, below is what must be the most nauseating, vile and despicable article written in the last half century, by an equally despicable and vile woman

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1169168/AMANDA-PLATELL-A-disturbing-death-tawdry-lust-fame-.html


What a truly worthless piece of garbage. Fit for the paper it appears in, I suppose...

[Kermit]

Amanda Platell. Now there is someone I could justify unprovoked violence towards...

[Scary Monster]

Amanda Platell. Now there is someone I could justify unprovoked violence towards...

Would there ever be a time when it would be unprovoked though?

[Aladdin]

Breaking news: new postmortem claimis Tomlinson did not die of a heart attack, but of internal bleeding: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm

I wonder what impact if any this might have on any action being considered against the copper(s) in question.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Probably manslaughter - though as that has been considered ever since the peeler was found out, it probably won't make a big difference (though may make it easier to proof)

[sneer]

I'm saying they don't with lapels to cover their numbers by accident...

So they didn't accidentally their numbers? :eek: thas naughty :D

I thought you were being sarky but couldn't tell.

[ShyBoy]

The copper as miserable as his actions were is pretty unfortunate. If the guy had been ok he would have gone home and it would have been forgotten about. As it is, due to acting just like the hundreds of other officers who get that 'team spirit' thing going where they see the protestors as the enemy etc. (tribal warfare or something), but because the guy he abused died he may be facing prison. The other PCs who largely acted the same way, probably encouraged or even instructed by their superiors and training officers to be firm and retain a 'commanding presence' (i.e. be intimidating), will just go home and get off scott free.

I don't know, it just seems to me we are going after the messenger rather than the people higher up who should be responsible for the conduct of their officers. It's clear that these weren't isolated outbreaks, it was the way the police were dealing with it. Any idiot with two brain cells could see if they're being heavy handed there is the potential for disaster. And as soon as there is a fatality they find the fall guy pretty quickly and his trial by media is all but over.

[Skive]

The copper as miserable as his actions were is pretty unfortunate.

To be fair that's not much different that any fight on the town. If somebody's not seriously injured very little comes of it.
He's unfortunate, but then most people facing a manslaughter charge are unfortunate. It's the nature of the crime.

[stargalaxy]

The same Amanda Platell? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Platell) "Platell has worked at the Daily Mirror, where she was the superior of Labour party's former director of communications, Alastair Campbell. Later, she edited the Sunday Express. She was sacked from this post following the publication of details of Peter Mandelson's gay relationship with his Brazilian partner."

All of which can be summed up in one word - CUNT.

Back to this story, and the front pages of the Grauniad and Indy are not pretty reading for the Met today...

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Apr/Week3/15264217.jpg http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Apr/Week3/15264218.jpg

And if you can get past the admittedly very nice picture of Princess Eugenie, it's even on the Mail...

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Apr/Week3/15264215.jpg

And the police wonder why they have such a shit reputation? Time for them to stop protecting the people who gave them a bad reputation in the first place - our useless politicians. The moment that happens, you'll see change.

[ShyBoy]

To be fair that's not much different that any fight on the town. If somebody's not seriously injured very little comes of it.
He's unfortunate, but then most people facing a manslaughter charge are unfortunate. It's the nature of the crime.

Yea I guess the marginal difference I'm getting at is if all of these PCs are instructed to use these kind of techniques to move people, everyone complains saying it's wrong but the police commissioner and politicians just say it's the lesser of two evils, they need to be equipped with the 'tools to do the job' and so on, but as soon as a PC who has likely been encouraged by his colleagues etc. (not directly as in 'smack his head in', but if one is being forceful then its like a sheep mentality) and there is a quiet acceptance that that's what they're allowed to do, and the bigwigs are agreeing with them - as soon as the PC does it and it goes wrong, everyone immediately scatters and turns round and says "what the fuck you doing mate?". When just as easily it could have been any one of them because they were all acting like that.

If the police commissioner wants to say that it's ok to use these tactics and this kind of force then he has to say (and weigh it on HIS conscience) that the occasional death through the use of these tactics is acceptable too. But to me it seems rather than doing that everyone wants to distance themselves from the PC and say what a nasty person he was when he was probably doing what he was told and through this silent acceptance from his colleagues encouraged to act like that.

It's all very well saying people should stand up to orders they think are wrong but crowd / group mentality has a lot to answer for, the most shocking example of which is the compliance of thousands of german soldiers etc. with the holocaust. If everyone else is doing it, it must be ok. But as soon as someone says it's wrong, you went too far, they don't go after hitler they go after the guy driving the truck to the gas chamber.

[Whowhere]

What happened to Tomlinson is awful, but I'm quite disgusted by the fact that a Police officer was murdered in cold blood for trying to arrest some armed robbers around the same time and pretty much fuck all has been said about it.

For every cop that overreacts or acts outside the law, you'll have 10's or hundreds who act like the cop above but they hardly get a mention.

[Skive]

What happened to Tomlinson is awful, but I'm quite disgusted by the fact that a Police officer was murdered in cold blood for trying to arrest some armed robbers around the same time and pretty much fuck all has been said about it.

Disgusted that nobody's mentioned it? Lots of people die tragically doing their job ffs. He got killed by some armed robbers and tragic as it is, unless they were armed with placards I fail to see what relevance it has here.

[Whowhere]

Disgusted that nobody's mentioned it? Lots of people die tragically doing their job ffs. He got killed by some armed robbers and tragic as it is, unless they were armed with placards I fail to see what relevance it has here.



The relevance is that the media are banging on and on and on about a man who died, POSSIBLY because of a police action and if some reports are to be believed despite some peoples' beliefs he had been causing trouble anyway.

The media are banging on and on about a woman who after pushing a riot cop was, to her surprise given a slap and a smack on the leg with a baton.

But the media are really not paying any press coverage whatsoever to a police officer who died trying to apprehend some armed scumbags.

[I'm With Stupid]

But the media are really not paying any press coverage whatsoever to a police officer who died trying to apprehend some armed scumbags.

Is that the one that was run over? If so, it must've been in the media, because I read it. Like I've said, the issue isn't that a man died at the hands of the police, it's the conduct of the police in dealing with it. Something which has far wider implications than the incident itself, especially given this governments seemingly endless aim of removing people's rights.

And while a police officer dying in the line of duty is a tragedy, as a story, it has nowhere near the political implications of the G20 ones.

[Skive]

The relevance is that the media are banging on and on and on about a man who died, POSSIBLY because of a police action and if some reports are to be believed despite some peoples' beliefs he had been causing trouble anyway

The media are banging on and on about a woman who after pushing a riot cop was, to her surprise given a slap and a smack on the leg with a baton.

Here we are, a PCSO making excuses for a fellow police officer actions. What suprise. The behavior of the police in both instances is unnacceptable, and you're trying to downplay it. You obviously don't think this is that important.

[squeal]

Here we are, a PCSO making excuses for a fellow police officer actions. What suprise. The behavior of the police in both instances is unnacceptable, and you're trying to downplay it. You obviously don't think this is that important.

I don't think Whowhere is making excuses, everyone sees things from a different perspective.

I agree that what was done was wrong, he had no right to hit him when his back was turned, but I can also sympathise with the officer involved. They are human after all, when you've had protesters in your face all day and at times fearing for your own personal safety, it is possible every now and then to lose your tether and lash out. However, when that happens obviously you have to face the consequences which is what this officer will be doing. But I think despite his actions, which should not have have taken, he should have controlled his fursttation, I do sympathise with him.

[Skive]

I don't think Whowhere is making excuses, everyone sees things from a different perspective.

Well he doesn't seem to think it's all that serious.

I agree that what was done was wrong, he had no right to hit him when his back was turned,

He had no right to hit him AT ALL.

but I can also sympathise with the officer involved. They are human after all, when you've had protesters in your face all day and at times fearing for your own personal safety, it is possible every now and then to lose your tether and lash out. However, when that happens obviously you have to face the consequences which is what this officer will be doing. But I think despite his actions, which should not have have taken, he should have controlled his fursttation, I do sympathise with him.

The only sympathy I have is that a policeman knows that his actions probably killed somebody and I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
But if it was his actions that led to the death of Tomlinson (as seems likely), then he should be charged accordingly - in just the same way I'd be charged If I'd done it. There's never any justification for the police to lose control in that way.

And policeman who backhanded and stuck that woman with a batton should be charged aswell. She was gobbing off and she was swearing but as soon we let that be justification for a copper to assualt you were all in trouble.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6122785.ece

...and again...here's a number of old bill getting their jollies by beating people up...Neon Chavs, is all these (particular) people are.

and also the silence is now quite DEAFENING at this point, from all those reactionary persons (note I'm not equating skeptical with reactionary) who told us - the people who were there - that we were all a bunch of trouble makers out to defame the good name of her majesty's Police.

There is a point which I hadn't considered but which I think certain officers might like to reflect on, even if they weren't guilty of this. Police operate in dangerous circumstances (I don't mean this - I mean proper danger, like when dealing with criminal cartels, violent offenders, and on very limited occasions, terrorists).

They operate however in a public space, and there may well be times when a police officer will need the support, assistance or testimony of a member of the public. That trust is being systematically undermined, daily, by the procession of evidence emerging now.

It's a situation that has only negative consequences for all parties, and I would therefore like to pose the following question; unless we can see, from the police tactics, actions and handling of the protests, that some great benefit came out of it relative to the damage, both literal and symbolic, that has been done to relations between our public service and the public it serves - is it now not right to say that there is no clear evidence base for the use of this type of policing in this situation again?

[Flashman's Ghost]

The video is hardly a smoking gun... Both incidents took place in a middle of an argy bargy when in the middle of both sides shoving and pushing a couple of coppers momentarily loose their rags. Yeah not very good and the coppers deserve to be disciplined, but until the moment you get robots you're going to have people and in stressful situations people sometimes momentarily loose it.

NB: I'm not talking about the Tomlinson case where the peeler just clubs him as he's moving away.

[Flashman's Ghost]

And to be far to police tactics they probably didn't want a repeat of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtr-6sWgTEE

or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpTj4msfCVM&feature=related

[Flashman's Ghost]

If everyone else is doing it, it must be ok. But as soon as someone says it's wrong, you went too far, they don't go after hitler they go after the guy driving the truck to the gas chamber.

You really need to brush up on your historical analogies. They couldn't go after Hitler, he was dead as was Goebells, Borhman probably was killed trying to flee Berlin. They did however go after the remaining top guys - Goering and Himmler were both hunted down, but committed suicide before facing the hangman's rope.

Amongst those hung were William Frick, Minister of the Interior, Hans Frank, Reichcommissar of Poland, Keitell and Jodl, head of the Wermacht and his Chief of Operations respectivelly, von Ribbentrop, the Foreign Minister, and Julius Streicher, a publisher and propogandist. And that's only the main trial

In total, 142 of the 185 defendants were found guilty of at least one of the charges. 24 persons received death sentences, of which 11 were subsequently converted into lifetime imprisonments; 20 were sentenced to lifetime imprisonment, 98 were handed down prison sentences of varying lengths, and 35 were acquitted. Four defendants had to be removed from trials due to illness, and four more committed suicide during the trials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequent_Nuremberg_Trials

[ShyBoy]

:|

what has any of that got to do this case? I can't tell if you're just being amusing or you just missed my point altogether.

[Jim V]

You said that people don't go after people responsible for the bad decisions, but the people who carry out the orders. You then specifically used Hitler and gas chambers as an example. Flashman was just pointing out that in fact there was a concerted effort by the allies to find out exactly what had been done by the Nazis, exactly who was responsible and every effort was made to punish the people at the evry top.

[ShyBoy]

wasnt using hitler as an example in the same way you seem to think i was. more of a metaphor of sorts.

i.e. the don't go after the ringleader (responsible) they go after the 'messenger' or underling or whatever.

I'm not completely ignorant to the most notable historic event in the last century

i guess i just didnt make that side point very clear and had to be well informed about the historical events to ensure i never make that mistake again

[Martin_Bashir]

And to be far to police tactics they probably didn't want a repeat of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtr-6sWgTEE

or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpTj4...eature=related

With you on the use of the Hitler analogy; but dragging up any random incidents of public disorder to justify other specific incidents of policing is not very convincing argumentation - your examples come from a group of demonstrators markedly different, reacting in different ways, and presenting an altogether different scenario for the police. Any rudimentary police intelligence before hand would have revealed this.

You've picked a completely separate demo, different people, cause demographic, tactics and history of conduct...next case...

st The video is hardly a smoking gun... Both incidents took place in a middle of an argy bargy when in the middle of both sides shoving and pushing a couple of coppers momentarily loose their rags. Yeah not very good and the coppers deserve to be disciplined, but until the moment you get robots you're going to have people and in stressful situations people sometimes momentarily loose it.

Again you are far too dismissive here I feel - if either of those had resulted in serious injury or complications then you wouldn't be so ready to dismiss them. A man who knows he is vulnerable to blows to the head, for example; due to a medical condition, has the right to expect in this society not to be bashed about the head by a policeman if he not threatening that policeman.

If you are suggesting that this is 'nothing serious' then you would have to also make the same assertion for had either of those people had a serious injury or complication - although I acknowledge you explicitly stated that you were not referring to the Tomlinson case, I argue that his case is precisely comparable with this; I was inside that kettle, we could not get out, they would not let us.

It is serious, it is unjust, it is unacceptable, and no, it isn't inevitable because a great many other officers did not feel the need to clobber unarmed, non-violent civillians.

[Jim V]

wasnt using hitler as an example in the same way you seem to think i was. more of a metaphor of sorts.

i.e. the don't go after the ringleader (responsible) they go after the 'messenger' or underling or whatever.

I'm not completely ignorant to the most notable historic event in the last century

i guess i just didnt make that side point very clear and had to be well informed about the historical events to ensure i never make that mistake again

Hey man, sorry if I sounded harsh - was posting as I was replying elsewhere. It's just that using Hitler or the Nazis as an allegory for other events can be problematic, as it's such an extreme example.

[ShyBoy]

yea im not annoyed at you i havent had much sleep the past few days since this girl im doing a project at uni with had a go at me because its not finished (hand in in 3 weeks?!) and so last night was pretty much an all nighter and im just beyond tired now lol.

[Flashman's Ghost]

With you on the use of the Hitler analogy; but dragging up any random incidents of public disorder to justify other specific incidents of policing is not very convincing argumentation - your examples come from a group of demonstrators markedly different, reacting in different ways, and presenting an altogether different scenario for the police. Any rudimentary police intelligence before hand would have revealed this.

You've picked a completely separate demo, different people, cause demographic, tactics and history of conduct...next case....

I'm not sure that it's totally a different scenario and different people, both involved left-wing groups who have latched onto 'popular' protests where the majority of people aren't up for a ruck (Gaza and Climate Change - though it's also worth noting that it wasn't only the Climate Change groups who were at G20). We judge things according to our past experience, the police as well as everyone else, and as we saw not all demonstrators were peaceful, and even peaceful protests can easily degenerate into a bloody mob.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01376/rbs-window-compute_1376837c.jpg

In this case it seems the tactics were wrong/worked almost perfectly, but given the criticism the police will probably handle the next big demo more sensitively, which will then kick off and the peelers will be criticised for not doing enough to stop it. So they'll police the next one more proactively. It's a seesaw - it usually is.


Again you are far too dismissive here I feel - if either of those had resulted in serious injury or complications then you wouldn't be so ready to dismiss them. A man who knows he is vulnerable to blows to the head, for example; due to a medical condition, has the right to expect in this society not to be bashed about the head by a policeman if he not threatening that policeman.

If you are suggesting that this is 'nothing serious' then you would have to also make the same assertion for had either of those people had a serious injury or complication - although I acknowledge you explicitly stated that you were not referring to the Tomlinson case, I argue that his case is precisely comparable with this; I was inside that kettle, we could not get out, they would not let us.

It is serious, it is unjust, it is unacceptable, and no, it isn't inevitable because a great many other officers did not feel the need to clobber unarmed, non-violent civillians

The difference between Tomlinson and these two incidents isn't the injury, but the context. Tomlinson was walking away hands in pockets, the first protestor looked like he was pushing against a riot shield and the second was in the middle of the police trying to clear.

[Whowhere]

Here we are, a PCSO making excuses for a fellow police officer actions. What suprise. The behavior of the police in both instances is unnacceptable, and you're trying to downplay it. You obviously don't think this is that important.


Erm, no I'm not.

I've said previously that the actions of the cop in THAT instance are well out of order.

But let's recap what we KNOW in both incidents.

There is a possibility that Tomlinson was causing problems immediately before the video, if that is the case he should have been arrested.
We KNOW he was walking away.
We KNOW he was pushed for no apparent reason.
We KNOW he got up and walked away.
We KNOW he later died from internal bleeding.

We don't KNOW that the internal bleeding was a result of the push, exacerbated by the push, or completely unrelated due to Tomlinson having God knows how many pre-existing conditions caused by alcohol.

Like I said, the cop should have arrested him, or left him alone so his actions were unacceptable.

As for the woman...
We KNOW she was pushing the cop first.
We KNOW she was swearing at him.
We KNOW this was in the middle of a public disorder.
We KNOW he responded by slapping her.
We KNOW she came back for more.
We KNOW he struck her with a baton.

At the moment the evidence suggests Tomlinson was totally innocent. The same cannot be said for her. Everybody knows you don't start shoving a riot cop around in the middle of a riot. Yes, his reactions were probably over the top, he should have nicked her but a lot of you are suggesting she is also entirely blameless, which she isn't. Yes she probably didn't deserve to be struck with a baton, but if she hadn't been in his face screaming at him she probably wouldn't have been either.
The cop who was involved with Tomlinson does not deserve to wear the uniform and should, after the investigation be sacked, as his was an unprovoked attack.

[Skive]

As for the woman...
We KNOW she was pushing the cop first.
We KNOW she was swearing at him.
We KNOW this was in the middle of a riot.
We KNOW he responded by slapping her.
We KNOW she came back for more.
We KNOW he struck her with a baton.

Well this video suggest that she wasn't pushing the cop first and I see a protest going on but not much rioting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM

She came back for more? It comes across that you think she deserved it?

Everybody knows you don't start shoving a riot cop around in the middle of a riot. Yes, his reactions were probably over the top, he should have nicked her but a lot of you are suggesting she is also entirely blameless, which she isn't. She caused her own problems, she is responsible for the end result.

Again where the evidence to suggest she was shoving him and a protest is not the same thing as a riot. He should have ncked her? What for?
By suggesting that the blame lies with her your saying that a backhanded slap and baton strike is perfectly acceptable response for a copper to use on somebnody remonstrating with them.

It wrong.

[Whowhere]

She wasn't "remonstrating" with him. She was getting in his face despite being told to get back, shoving him and swearing at him.
He clearly told her to get back. She didn't. He slapped her and again told her to go away, she didn't.

At that point he SHOULD have arrested her for a public order offence or for breach of the peace. Instead he took his baton out and struck her with it, something I already said he shouldn't have done.

The slap, or a push were acceptable, the baton strike wasn't.

I'm not suggesting she deserved it, I'm suggesting that if she had got back out of his face the first time, nothing else would have happened.

[Kermit]

I'm quite disgusted by the fact that a Police officer was murdered in cold blood for trying to arrest some armed robbers around the same time and pretty much fuck all has been said about it.

I agree, the incident where the police officer lost their life doing their job was awful. It is when anyone dies doing their job, but it is a risk that police officers, lifeguards, soldiers and the like take.

If you can't understand the difference between a police officer murdering someone at a protest (attacking him like that is GBH with intent, if those injuries killed him, as seems likely, it is murder) and a specialist firearms officer dying in a gun battle then you're a complete tool.

a man who died, POSSIBLY because of a police action and if some reports are to be believed despite some peoples' beliefs he had been causing trouble anyway.

Oh, sorry, there's no argument at all. You ARE a complete tool.

There's no possibly about it: he was attacked without provocation and then he died. If you don't think that's causal you're a cretin. If you think that by wanting to get out of the kettle he's deserving of a beating then you should be summarily dismissed from your job, as should any other copper with that view.

[Whowhere]

Oh, sorry, there's no argument at all. You ARE a complete tool.

There's no possibly about it: he was attacked without provocation and then he died. If you don't think that's causal you're a cretin. If you think that by wanting to get out of the kettle he's deserving of a beating then you should be summarily dismissed from your job, as should any other copper with that view.



I've not once said that the cops actions were acceptable, I've not once said that Tomlinson deserved ANY of what he got. All I said was that there is NO FUCKING PROOF that Tomlinson's internal bleeding was caused directly by being pushed over. Until the coroner finishes, all we know is that it was a possibility.

And you need to learn some law. Pushing someone over, regardless of the end result is a common assault, not GBH with intent. If the push caused his death than it is manslaughter, ie ACCIDENTAL DEATH. You're acting just as bad as the sensationalist reporters who write for the Sun and the Mail.

And if you can't write anything without resorting to calling someone a cretin or a tool simply because you disagree with them then you need to reassess your life.


but it is a risk that police officers, lifeguards, soldiers and the like take.


Exactly, a risk we take. You're happy for us to keep taking those risks so you sleep safe at night, you're equally as dismissive if one of us dies because that's "our job", something we should expect, you're suggesting we only have ourselves to blame because that's the life we chose, somehow we deserve it.

But when one of us makes a monumental mistake that will haunt us for the rest of our life, you're happy to rip us apart, criticise everything we ever did and ever could do, call us "fucking pigs", "agents of the state", "nazis" and throw us to the wolves. Thanks.

[Martin_Bashir]

The difference between Tomlinson and these two incidents isn't the injury, but the context. Tomlinson was walking away hands in pockets, the first protestor looked like he was pushing against a riot shield and the second was in the middle of the police trying to clear.

Oh of course and quite rightly the valiant officer of the law, who of course wasn't himself 'up for a ruck' at all, had to use this force against an unarmed civilian...but of course those who are on the receiving end can't possibly understand the context of violence; only those designated individuals who are sanctioned to use it are able to do that...

You've dodged the argument here- the man could NOT reasonably get out the way, and the people didn't step up to the police by the way, the police stepped up to them and closed them in...they gave no warning to move, no dispersal order, so that argument falls flat for a start.

I totally dispute the fact that they it was neccessary for the officer to do this - look at the video, can you give me any precise indication of what this man was doing, so different to those around him, before the officer hit him. In addition, can you also tell me why this officer felt the need to do this, and others did not.



I'm not sure that it's totally a different scenario and different people, both involved left-wing groups who have latched onto 'popular' protests where the majority of people aren't up for a ruck (Gaza and Climate Change - though it's also worth noting that it wasn't only the Climate Change groups who were at G20). We judge things according to our past experience, the police as well as everyone else, and as we saw not all demonstrators were peaceful, and even peaceful protests can easily degenerate into a bloody mob.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...e_1376837c.jpg

In this case it seems the tactics were wrong/worked almost perfectly, but given the criticism the police will probably handle the next big demo more sensitively, which will then kick off and the peelers will be criticised for not doing enough to stop it. So they'll police the next one more proactively. It's a seesaw - it usually is.

<note: link not working>

Yes but if our judgment is too general our conclusions will be sloppy, as they were in the G20 policing. As for your claim about this group of agitators; the policeman on the outside of the corden told me that there were 'dangerous elements' within the Camp - I'd just been in there, singing 'we don't want trouble' in front of a police van (video available on request) with a bunch of others, and these are lies. Plain and simple.

And things didn't degenerate into a bloody mob, but the police had been telling everyone that the end was nigh for a long time - no hanged bankers, not ONE assault in the whole of London on a city worker (oh wait, yes there was, from the POLICE), one smashed business, a bit of chalk on the pavements.

Now, lets deal with the 'unpopular' claim - your notion of what is popular and unpopular, democratic and undemocratic is a little inconsistent in my opinion - when the police kettled at the Climate Camp, city workers, people just out generally, were coming past the kettle berrating the police.

These people weren't involved in the protest, but they had clear sympathy for the ridiculous response involved.

No evidence has been produced of evidence for anything except RBS.

But still with the cynicism, still with the unshakable belief that these are just a bunch of reds that need a good beating. People are peaceful now, but a few more of these and they might not be.



Exactly, a risk we take. You're happy for us to keep taking those risks so you sleep safe at night, you're equally as dismissive if one of us dies because that's "our job", something we should expect, you're suggesting we only have ourselves to blame because that's the life we chose, somehow we deserve it.

But when one of us makes a monumental mistake that will haunt us for the rest of our life, you're happy to rip us apart, criticise everything we ever did and ever could do, call us "fucking pigs", "agents of the state", "nazis" and throw us to the wolves. Thanks.

This is a good point - shouting at each other is not going to get us anywhere, and to be honest dismissivness of any death is reprehensible - from my observations, as I've repeated, the police were handling things well until they changed tactics, without warning, and closed people in.

For me, this means that there needs to a large public debate about this, which must include police officers (at all levels) if neccessary, there should be some anonymity so that we get a decent view of how the police see their role in the community.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/19/ipcc-police-g20-protests

[I'm With Stupid]

Exactly, a risk we take. You're happy for us to keep taking those risks so you sleep safe at night, you're equally as dismissive if one of us dies because that's "our job", something we should expect, you're suggesting we only have ourselves to blame because that's the life we chose, somehow we deserve it.

But when one of us makes a monumental mistake that will haunt us for the rest of our life, you're happy to rip us apart, criticise everything we ever did and ever could do, call us "fucking pigs", "agents of the state", "nazis" and throw us to the wolves. Thanks.

Driving is a dangerous job too (far more dangerous than policing), and I'm happy to allow drivers do that as well, so that I get my fresh milk in the morning. When a driver dies in the line of duty, I expect it gets far less coverage and respect than when a police officer dies. And when a driver drives like a dickhead and causes an accident, the fact that he's doing a dangerous job shouldn't be an excuse, and he should get everything that's coming to him in terms of punishment. I don't see why the police should be a special case in this regard. I wouldn't call the reaction to the police officers killed in Northern Ireland recently as dismissive, even in areas where respect for the police is historically less than great.

The comments about the police force in general refer to the circumstances surrounding the incident, and what seems like a widespread attempt at covering up of the facts and misreporting the incident to protect fellow police officers. Like I said, it's not the mistake, it's the widespread corruption that followed it.

[Whowhere]

Driving is a dangerous job too (far more dangerous than policing), and I'm happy to allow drivers do that as well, so that I get my fresh milk in the morning. When a driver dies in the line of duty, I expect it gets far less coverage and respect than when a police officer dies. And when a driver drives like a dickhead and causes an accident, the fact that he's doing a dangerous job shouldn't be an excuse, and he should get everything that's coming to him in terms of punishment. I don't see why the police should be a special case in this regard. I wouldn't call the reaction to the police officers killed in Northern Ireland recently as dismissive, even in areas where respect for the police is historically less than great.

The comments about the police force in general refer to the circumstances surrounding the incident, and what seems like a widespread attempt at covering up of the facts and misreporting the incident to protect fellow police officers. Like I said, it's not the mistake, it's the widespread corruption that followed it.



I'm not trying to suggest that the Police should be a special case, if someone dies as a result of a police officer's lack of judgment then that cop should be punished.
Likewise, my original point was that at the same time of Tomlinson dying a police officer was hit and killed by a getaway car which was deliberate. Now that was reported on for a day, and Kermit in particular seems to be suggesting that because he was a cop he should have expected to meet an untimely death at some point. Likewise I suppose Kermit also thinks PC Sharon Beshinivsky should have expected the same when she confronted an armed man, or who nearly died in the case of PC Rachel Bown. Neither of them were armed police, but they're in a uniform so they're fair game.



I'll repeat it again though, because somehow it always seems to get lost in the translation. I do NOT think that the cop who pushed Tomlinson should keep his job. I DO think that if the EVIDENCE (don't forget we need that folks, but then why should we let the truth get in the way of a good story) proves that the internal bleeding was a result of being pushed then that cop should be put away.

Until the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Tomlinson died as a result of the push then the cop isn't guilty of anything except common assault and acting outside his authority and like a tit.
If the shoe were on the other foot (which it was when we were all screaming for blood when that chap who confronted the lads outside his house) and you were oh so happy telling us that it was an accidental death e.t.c you'd be saying exactly the same as me.

[I'm With Stupid]

If the shoe were on the other foot (which it was when we were all screaming for blood when that chap who confronted the lads outside his house) and you were oh so happy telling us that it was an accidental death e.t.c you'd be saying exactly the same as me.

Who said that? I don't know the incident you're on about, but I'd be more than happy to see anyone who takes violent vigilante action in prison. Anyone who takes action in self defence, even if they confronted someone, is another issue. The people who are defending the police in this case are the same people who defend the likes of Tony Martin, or other vigilantes who are "teaching the yobs a lesson." And there are people who think that both of these police officers were justified. But I don't know of anyone who praises vigilantes, but criticized police for being heavy-handed. It seems to me that people are for vigilante action tend to be the type of people who would have no problem with a bunch of yobs in uniform replacing the police.

But on the evidence, you say yourself, the only thing that evidence can prove now is whether it was assault or manslaughter. Our opinion of the police officer shouldn't change based on that, because that's merely a matter of luck. The fact that we all saw the assault should be enough to make a judgement about his conduct. If someone's driving like a dickhead and doesn't kill anyone, they should be regarded in the same way as if they did kill someone. It's just a matter of luck.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/19/police-intimidation-protesters-civil-liberties

An interesting, concise and balanced editorial on the situation I think.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Oh of course and quite rightly the valiant officer of the law, who of course wasn't himself 'up for a ruck' at all, had to use this force against an unarmed civilian...but of course those who are on the receiving end can't possibly understand the context of violence; only those designated individuals who are sanctioned to use it are able to do that...

You've dodged the argument here- the man could NOT reasonably get out the way, and the people didn't step up to the police by the way, the police stepped up to them and closed them in...they gave no warning to move, no dispersal order, so that argument falls flat for a start.

I totally dispute the fact that they it was neccessary for the officer to do this - look at the video, can you give me any precise indication of what this man was doing, so different to those around him, before the officer hit him. In addition, can you also tell me why this officer felt the need to do this, and others did not.]

I haven't dodged the argument Martin and could you stop accussing me, when I don't agree with you, of doing so. I am putting it in a wider context and trying to put forward an argument you evidentally disagree with.

As to whether the man could get out of the way, you don't end up in the front by accident. They were grappling with police (and he got out of the way quick enough when he was hit by a blow to the head I might add). As to why the peeler acted the way he did - I don't know , I'm not in his shoes, but I have been in similar. I am assuming that you weren't in the police line either, of course....



<note: link not working>

http://southwalesanarchists.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rbs-smashed.jpg

Hopefully this works, taken from a slightly different angle than the telegraph one

Yes but if our judgment is too general our conclusions will be sloppy, as they were in the G20 policing. As for your claim about this group of agitators; the policeman on the outside of the corden told me that there were 'dangerous elements' within the Camp - I'd just been in there, singing 'we don't want trouble' in front of a police van (video available on request) with a bunch of others, and these are lies. Plain and simple.

And things didn't degenerate into a bloody mob, but the police had been telling everyone that the end was nigh for a long time - no hanged bankers, not ONE assault in the whole of London on a city worker (oh wait, yes there was, from the POLICE), one smashed business, a bit of chalk on the pavements

forgive the peelers if they are worried when people say that real bankers might be hung. Perhaps they should have just ignored that and even handed the lynch mob a rope.

As for singing we don't want trouble, I'm afraid that doesn't mean a thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrY2X1qM6N8

Also I'm afraid the video evidence doesn't suggest that your claims of an entirely peaceful protest except for a smashing of a window doesn't hold up - unless of course you think that the peeler being helped to the van accidently hit himself whilst thumping innocent protesters.

If you said there was some unjustified violence on both sides I 'd agree, as it is your view of it as peaceful protest where the only thuggery was by the police doesn't seem entirely accurate.



Now, lets deal with the 'unpopular' claim - your notion of what is popular and unpopular, democratic and undemocratic is a little inconsistent in my opinion - when the police kettled at the Climate Camp, city workers, people just out generally, were coming past the kettle berrating the police.

These people weren't involved in the protest, but they had clear sympathy for the ridiculous response involved.

No evidence has been produced of evidence for anything except RBS.

But still with the cynicism, still with the unshakable belief that these are just a bunch of reds that need a good beating. People are peaceful now, but a few more of these and they might not be.

I could also say your view of democracy isn't consistent, but then that's true of 99% people.

Also I think you need to read my arguments again if you are accussing me of saying that they need a good beating... my views are much more nuanced than that.

I could equally characterise your views as 'All coppers are bastards' but that wouldn't be an entirely accurate reflection.

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh about your views, but frankly your tone and can I say deliberate misreading, has really pissed me off.

[Whowhere]

Who said that? I don't know the incident you're on about,
.



You'll have to forgive me because I can't remember the name of the guy. There were some idiots causing problems outside his house, so he went out and told them to clear off.

They responded by kicking him to death.

I mentioned it because i remember at the time, myself and others were quite vocal in that they should have been prosecuted for murder, not manslaughter.
They may not have intended to kill him, but they certainly intended to do him some serious harm where death was a likely outcome.
The words used were "as a policeman you should know that accidental death is manslaughter, not murder" or something to that effect.

Now here we have, a couple of years later a man who has died after a contact with the police. The police officer pushed him, it was wrong but not really a serious assault on the face of it, one which he immediately got up and walked away from with no apparent ill-effects.
A few minutes later he dies, and people on this board and in the media are calling the cop a murderer, that he comitted a GBH with intent, that the fact the guy died by accident is irrelevant.

I was merely pointint out the turn of events and how it seems because a uniform is involved the law has suddenly changed, that evidence is irrelevant.


Ultimately the man has died. POSSIBLY because of the cop, POSSIBLY because of a pre-existing condition, POSSIBLY a combination of the 2.

Manslaughter? Possibly. Murder/GBH with intent? never.

[I'm With Stupid]

Aye, I remember the one you're talking about now. I thought you meant a bloke who killed some lads who were being abusive. If I know the law correctly (and I don't), you can be done for murder when someone dies after an incident in which you intended to cause serious damage to a person. So beating someone to death always comes with the risk of a murder charge, even if you never intended to kill them, whereas a single blow leading to death would only ever be manslaughter. Is that right? If so, I can see why the little shits could be up for murder.

[Whowhere]

So beating someone to death always comes with the risk of a murder charge, even if you never intended to kill them, whereas a single blow leading to death would only ever be manslaughter. Is that right? If so, I can see why the little shits could be up for murder.

Unless you have a decent lawyer and you can persuade someone it was an accident.

But you see where I'm coming from, the cop could never be prosecuted in law for anything more than manslaughter, because nobody could ever forsee someone dying from being pushed over, especially if he didn't hit his head on something.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://www.minimouse.me.uk/draxraid.mov

OK then, what about this people.

[Flashman]

Link works - I'm actually pretty sure that the photo was taken by my mate as it happens!

I am sorry if I've characterised your arguments as less nuanced than they are, but the balance of your commentary, while reasoned when it appears, also tends towards silence when you see something you don't like. Maybe I've missed something vital (always possible) but the silence is deafening on the rights of people.

In any case I'm sorry if this has wound you up, its not intentional - I accept things can be read in different ways - I don't want to lose you as a discussion companion! :D

But I don't retract the context of anything I've stated.

You say you are situating things in context, ok in terms of the process of policing and the immediate context of the action but how about the wider social context exemplified by the video above? Sharmi Chakrabarti gets all kinds of horrendous slurs directed at her but she's bang on here - structural changes in anti-terror laws have conditioned police officers to behave in ways that are barking...

Seriously, does this none of this worry you - do you really think this is just a swings and roundabouts thing of a self correcting system, or can you not see at least the possibility of a general and more sinister trend in this?

[Skive]

She wasn't "remonstrating" with him. She was getting in his face despite being told to get back, shoving him and swearing at him.
He clearly told her to get back. She didn't. He slapped her and again told her to go away, she didn't.


She was remonstrating with him. There's no evidence at all that she shoved him in the video - have you watched it? Even If she did then she should have been arrested but I can't see anything in that video that is justification for what the copper did. Swearing is not a GOOD enough reason for the police to physically assault somebody. The back handed slap was unnaccptable, and the following baton strike even more so.

That you're defending his actions I find rather shocking. I'm all up for the police using force where appropriate, but this quite clearly is wrong. You can't go around hitting non violent protestors just because they're shouting at you and and 'in your face' as you put it.

[Flashman's Ghost]

http://www.minimouse.me.uk/draxraid.mov

OK then, what about this people.

[QUOTE][Flashman]

Link works - I'm actually pretty sure that the photo was taken by my mate as it happens!

I am sorry if I've characterised your arguments as less nuanced than they are, but the balance of your commentary, while reasoned when it appears, also tends towards silence when you see something you don't like. Maybe I've missed something vital (always possible) but the silence is deafening on the rights of people.

In any case I'm sorry if this has wound you up, its not intentional - I accept things can be read in different ways - I don't want to lose you as a discussion companion! :D

But I don't retract the context of anything I've stated.

Okay fair enough. On my silence it could be that a) that I'm doing something else and don't get round to replying or b) an argument is going round in circles and I see no point in going over the same things again

You say you are situating things in context, ok in terms of the process of policing and the immediate context of the action but how about the wider social context exemplified by the video above? Sharmi Chakrabarti gets all kinds of horrendous slurs directed at her but she's bang on here - structural changes in anti-terror laws have conditioned police officers to behave in ways that are barking...

Seriously, does this none of this worry you - do you really think this is just a swings and roundabouts thing of a self correcting system, or can you not see at least the possibility of a general and more sinister trend in this?

I have a lot of time Sharmi Chakrabarti, she's one of the few defenders of liberties who ever seem to see civil liberties in the wider context of dealing with violent disorder and terrorism (and realising that your liberties aren't just at threat from the state). However, in this case I think she's wrong - this has nothing to do with anti-terror laws, which in some cases are wrong and some not.

It is to do with the old question of how you deal with large groups of people, and the interface between what is legitimate protest (even if includes some element of lawbreaking) and mob rule (even if contains some element of peaceful protest). If you look at the Miners and Wapping Strikes you can see the police both dealing zealousy with strikers and also standing back and getting a good kicking. Brixton/Toxeth vs Broadwater Farm, is another example, albeit in less organised outreaks.

The peelers continually have to tread a line between the rights of some and the rights of others - how long do you allow protestors to block a road and impede others from going about their lawful business? How much damage do you allow before you make arrests? at what stage does a rowdy demonstration become a risk to public safety (of the demonstrators as much as if not more so than peelers and the people).

There of course is the wider question of how far do we allow those who shout loudest to force the hands of the elected representatives - though I acknowledge that is a wider remit than that of the police.

And in sending out the police to deal with public order (much better than the Army as witness the Peterloo Massacre) we're going to have to accept that they are human and that people in stressful situations (and you try wearing riot gear, a heavy shield and coping with a rowdy crowd) won't always act as plastic saints. And if the decision is made that the crowd need to be dispersed or penned in - it is much, much better to do it with such overwhelming force that you can keep control than so little force it degenerates into a running battle.

[I'm With Stupid]

But you see where I'm coming from, the cop could never be prosecuted in law for anything more than manslaughter, because nobody could ever forsee someone dying from being pushed over, especially if he didn't hit his head on something.

Of course. On another forum, someone started a thread saying a policeman murdered someone, and everyone said don't be stupid. I don't think many people disagree that it would only ever be manslaughter at worst.

[Whowhere]

She was remonstrating with him. There's no evidence at all that she shoved him in the video - have you watched it? Even If she did then she should have been arrested but I can't see anything in that video that is justification for what the copper did. Swearing is not a GOOD enough reason for the police to physically assault somebody. The back handed slap was unnaccptable, and the following baton strike even more so.

That you're defending his actions I find rather shocking. I'm all up for the police using force where appropriate, but this quite clearly is wrong. You can't go around hitting non violent protestors just because they're shouting at you and and 'in your face' as you put it.


Didn't I not say she should have been arrested? Did I not say that the baton strike was going too far?
I'm agreeing with you and you're trying to make it out that I'm not.

I'm defending his actions because as you can see from the video, it was a highly stressful situation and he made an error of judgment.

[Aladdin]

And to be far to police tactics they probably didn't want a repeat of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtr-6sWgTEE

or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpTj4msfCVM&feature=related

If the police really think the way to prevent trouble and rioting is by randomly assaulting peaceful protesters they're even more clueless than I thought.

Serious trouble did not erupt at the G20 in spite of the police's behaviour, not because of it.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8007580.stm

And here come ACPO! Reminding us, that really, we should be thankful that they don't use water cannons, CS gas, rubber bullets and such on peaceful protestors.

I can accept the part about having a balance in reporting, vis a vis the fact that not all police or even a majority as far as I could see were at fault; but my cynicism towards this body knows no bounds, and their deceitful nature has been discussed at length on these boards.

I read the Inspector Gadget blog the other day, and for reasons of consistency I think it's important to bring up a point he raised - vis a vis, policeman dies, small coverage; woman slapped by Police officer MASSIVE coverage.

Now I'm not saying the two should be switched - but this does seem even to me, to be disproportionate, in this particular case.

The G20 policing is a vital public matter, exposing what I believe to be a wider unquestionning authoritarianism creeping into policing, punctuated by a man's death, THAT is the truly big story - but it's becoming a commodity like any other, and market economics will dictate this will probably snowball for some time to come.

EDIT:

In fairness to ACPO, it does appear as though one of their retired colleagues is starting to see some sense. His assessment of the mindset of officers encapsulates most of the dealings I have had with a police officers, except one (I am very sorry to say);

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/20/policing-relations-general-public.

[Whowhere]

I read the Inspector Gadget blog the other day, and for reasons of consistency I think it's important to bring up a point he raised - vis a vis, policeman dies, small coverage; woman slapped by Police officer MASSIVE coverage.



Funny thing is, I bring this up and I get ripped apart for being a tool and a cretin for even daring to compare them.

[Aladdin]

Well you certainly shouldn't have been insulted or flamed Whowhere. I would just say that while it is a valid point to talk about, it is perhaps a separate issue.

In other words, it should not be a question of ''protester's death gets more publicity than policeman's'', but ''policeman's death doesn't get any publicity''.

While any policeman dying in the line of duty is a undoubtedly tragic, any such death is more 'expected' (for want of a better word) and thus less newsworthy than a protester possibly dying because of the actions of the police. It is not unreasonable to expect some coppers and soldiers will fall victim of their respective professions' occupational hazards. However peaceful members of the public are not supposed to die because of an alleged assault by the police, who at the end of the day exist to protect the public. That is what makes the protestor's death far more newsworthy.

[Whowhere]

Well you certainly shouldn\'t have been insulted or flamed Whowhere. I would just say that while it is a valid point to talk about, it is perhaps a separate issue.

In other words, it should not be a question of \'\'protester\'s death gets more publicity than policeman\'s\'\', but \'\'policeman\'s death doesn\'t get any publicity\'\'.

While any policeman dying in the line of duty is a undoubtedly tragic, any such death is more \'expected\' (for want of a better word) and thus less newsworthy than a protester possibly dying because of the actions of the police. It is not unreasonable to expect some coppers and soldiers will fall victim of their respective professions\' occupational hazards. However peaceful members of the public are not supposed to die because of an alleged assault by the police, who at the end of the day exist to protect the public. That is what makes the protestor\'s death far more newsworthy.


I agree, doesn\'t mean I have to like it. In doing so the media are attaching far more value to one person\'s life over another, when they are supposedly equal. The circumstances around both people are tragic. They were both approx the same age, both had lives which were cut short in a horrible manner. They should both be equally newsworthy.

[Aladdin]

Yeah, it's not fair, and our press have been long at it. Whatever is flavour of the month or deemed more interesting by our 'opinion formers' will get given loads of column inches. Other cases come to mind, such as the bloke who got killed by burglars getting disproportionate amount of coverage (compared with anyone else being offed by an intruder) simply because he was a Chelsea-residing rich City banker.

[Whowhere]

Watching this http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/g-20-investigation-meets-blow-up/?hp report on Channel 4, don't know if any of you have seen it.

Whilst it doesn't excuse the cop involved before I get flamed, it does give some insight into what was actually happening and the pressure these guys were under.

It also flies in the face of the reports that the protestors were the ones outnumbered and being peaceful.

[Martin_Bashir]

This is significant, and actually I think the Police Federation may be thankful for this.

Lets be clear - he could have killed that copper; that blow, so close to the temple of a person (not an officer, not a policeman - a person) who had no protection on - left him just as vulnerable as all other people in that situation without protection.

What this shows is clear - violence begets violence - now what I am NOT doing is linking the two directly, but lets consider this; copper who hits Tomlinson is enraged by the assault on his friend. Person who threw the punch, is enraged by seeing the man hit his head on the door.

I am sure that there were people, on both sides of that cordon, who just love a row.

I wonder though, if the same could be said about the fact that, if you read the recent Monbiot blog (and for those inclined to be skeptical about his writings, I am only citing the matters or record here) his foot was impaled on a spike by private security guards after they can come directly from meeting with the Police, who turned around as one, and turned a very public blind eye to a serious assault. What would the affect be on someone witnessing that, because it's been well documented that the G20 is just one in a series of Police actions against demonstrators over the years in this country (and if we take Bishopsgate, as far as we know at the moment, peaceful).

A policeman who's been to football more than once, or to a few of the more rowdy Gaza protests might be similarly affected.

Both sides need to consider their actions, because the people who end up paying for it may well not be those involved (e.g: Tomlinson, the policeman who got hit).

[Flashman's Ghost]

Jeez, the peelers were all over the place, no wonder there was violence; it becomes obvious they had no control over the situation. He's dragging someone back, there's several hundred protestors closing in on him and there's hardly a peeler to be seen.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8016620.stm

Another none-too-bright member of Her Majesty's Conthuggery in hot water...

[Flashman's Ghost]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8016620.stm

Another none-too-bright member of Her Majesty's Conthuggery in hot water...

Yep, seems like a tasteless joke (though I found it amusing). But perhaps we should have another thread on how what you write on a website should be sanctionable by your employers...

[Whowhere]

He is a bit of an idiot. I think it is relevant to this thread, the Police have very clear rules about what you're allowed to do in your home life, who you're allowed to associate with, if you're allowed a second job and where you're allowed to live.

One of the rules covers bringing the force into disrepute. Posting pictures of yourself and putting up stupid messages on Facebook is one of these rules, at least in my force it is.

Aside from that, why didn't he set his profile to private? The only people who can even see my profile picture have to be accepted as friends, and I'm not stupid enough to write things like the above.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/01/g20-police-watchdog-investigation-protest

Just can't help themselves can they - Misinform, stir up, lash out, and cover up. If they weren't so inept at it it'd almost be an art...

Yep, seems like a tasteless joke (though I found it amusing). But perhaps we should have another thread on how what you write on a website should be sanctionable by your employers...


Admitting to conspiracy to commit criminal acts of violence against a group of people while in public service, on a publicly available website, is not the same as your employer coming down on you for expressing an opinion.

[Martin_Bashir]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs

unsurprising and consistent with previous practice but just thought I'd flag this up...

[Whowhere]

bollocks, the met wouldn't be that stupid surely?

[Martin_Bashir]

Don't know (and by that I really mean 'don't know' at this point).

The use of agent provocateurs has a long history in civil protest by authorities keen to justify use of force the world over. We'll have to wait to see what happens...