Jump to content

"innocent" man dies after police assault


Seats

Recommended Posts

This is confusing me as well. Even if the guy walked up to the police and called them a shower of ***** and whatever else, they still are not entitled to ****ing hit him to the ground. If he broke the law arrest him, otherwise don't.

 

Niaive post IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 305
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • djf

    51

  • jamboceej

    32

  • maroonlegions

    26

  • deesidejambo

    22

Niaive post IMO.

 

I accept that to a point......it might not always be a practical option in large crowds etc, however, it is a perfectly valid point here. The guy was by himself so if he was breaking the law they could have lifted him. They instead hit him with a batton and forced him to the ground when he wasn't looking.

 

Anyway, i see it's pointless trying to reason with you going by some of the ridiculous points you've tried to make above.

 

Also, if you're going to try and be clever i would first learn to spell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I accept that to a point......it might not always be a practical option in large crowds etc, however, it is a perfectly valid point here. The guy was by himself so if he was breaking the law they could have lifted him. They instead hit him with a batton and forced him to the ground when he wasn't looking.

 

Anyway, i see it's pointless trying to reason with you going by some of the ridiculous points you've tried to make above.

 

Also, if you're going to try and be clever i would first learn to spell.

 

I'm surprised at someone as liberal as you being bothered by typos or spelling mistakes. I would have thought that was fine as long as no human rights were affected. :th_love:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised at someone as liberal as you being bothered by typos or spelling mistakes. I would have thought that was fine as long as no human rights were affected. :th_love:

 

 

It's funny how people always try and make this into the "hand-wringing lefty" argument. If you're so tough on law and order etc i would've thought you'd like it upheld? Or are you just a bit stupid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miller Jambo 60
It's funny how people always try and make this into the "hand-wringing lefty" argument. If you're so tough on law and order etc i would've thought you'd like it upheld? Or are you just a bit stupid?

 

I obviously think the policeman has been a bit over the top with his treatment of this unfortunate person.

TBH i dont think his heart attack was related to the incident.

I know a lot of policeman and these guys are brand new.

I think we should be talking about the Newcastle SPEED cop found guilty of killing a girl while driving at 90MPH.

That was out of order and he should get Life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I obviously think the policeman has been a bit over the top with his treatment of this unfortunate person.

TBH i dont think his heart attack was related to the incident.

I know a lot of policeman and these guys are brand new.

I think we should be talking about the Newcastle SPEED cop found guilty of killing a girl while driving at 90MPH.

That was out of order and he should get Life.

 

 

I can't disagree with any of that about the guy dying MJ.

 

What ended up happening about the speed cop? I heard about the incident but nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miller Jambo 60
I can't disagree with any of that about the guy dying MJ.

 

What ended up happening about the speed cop? I heard about the incident but nothing more.

 

Found guilty of death by dangerous driving at Newcastle crown court.

To be sentenced later.

Hit 16 year old girl in may 08 while driving at 90mph in a 30mph zone.

Think he might have been chasing someone but not sure,

But 90 mph unreal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Found guilty of death by dangerous driving at Newcastle crown court.

To be sentenced later.

Hit 16 year old girl in may 08 while driving at 90mph in a 30mph zone.

Think he might have been chasing someone but not sure,

But 90 mph unreal.

 

 

Aye, i heard about what had happened, didn't know he had been found guilty. I'm pretty sure there are guidlines for speedcops when in pursuit, and i doubt they include driving at 90 in a 30 zone......they should throw the book at him.

 

He'll no doubt get a ticket.:hammer:

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's funny how people always try and make this into the "hand-wringing lefty" argument. If you're so tough on law and order etc i would've thought you'd like it upheld? Or are you just a bit stupid?

 

Interesting that your "reasoned arguments" have now resorted to personal insults. I will say once again, that the opening post was commenting on the way this incident was reported - assuming the guy was completely innocent and the nasty polis were to blame - when the full story is not yet known. I will also say once again, yes it was probably harsh pushing him over, but I genuinely think any reasonable person would have got themselves out of the way and would never have been in this situation. If this makes me a bit stupid, I bow to your superiority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst I do not think polis are angels, these particular guys were trying to do an unenviable job and control the situation. It is vital that they stamp their authority on the situation or they could be overrun by rioters (ahem, I mean "protestors"). What else could they do? arrest him? Not practical IMO. If he was a wee ned coming out of a nightclub being a wide boy, he would have deserved that push, the fact that he was an old ned in a potential riot situation does not change anything IMO. The fact he died afterwards is unfortunate, but I do not believe anything should be done against the officers involved and I still think it is irresponsible reporting to suggest he was completely innocent.

 

 

Given the fact you admit that the full story is not yet known, you seem pretty sure of what happened and what should now be done.

 

My point essentially is that the police are not above the laws they are paid to uphold. I take your point re the reporting of incidents, depending on the paper they'll always take the line that suits their agenda.

 

As for the insult i apologise, maybe a bit OTT. I just don't know how anyone can justify what appears to have happened. However, there's no point going round in circles so i'll just leave it at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had the opportunity to watch the video. From a personal point of view if I was in what I suspect anyone of intelligence even only at a minimal level would know that they were in the vicinity of an extremely volatile set of circumstances. In my own case I therefore would think twice about walking nonchalantly with my hands in my pockets a few feet in front of baton carrying riot equipped police and dogs. Now I realise this is not an offence, but I would think shows a serious lack of common sense.

 

The action by the policeman was in absence of other evidence probably over the top. However I do feel some action was required to remove this hands in pockets sauntering individual. Most of the video only shows the police personnel, but when the man is on the ground another person comes to assist him, this individual on turning away makes sure that he pulls up an article of clothing to obscure his face. This makes me wonder how close were the demonstrators, and what were the police advancing on when the push in the back occurred. Were there mitigating circumstances not shown in the short clip.

 

I would hesitate to make any judgement on what I have seen, obviously many of the opinions stressed here are quite polarised dependent on previous dealings or strong negative opinions of the police. There is also the normal trend where individuals see a set of circumstances as they would like them to be as opposed to what actually is occurring, e.g was it a push or a punch.

 

The major fact is that a man has died whether as a direct result of a police action, or an unfortunate timing of a heart attack that would have occurred anyway. The important thing is that a thorough and "independent" investigation is conducted by someone other than the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had the opportunity to watch the video. From a personal point of view if I was in what I suspect anyone of intelligence even only at a minimal level would know that they were in the vicinity of an extremely volatile set of circumstances. In my own case I therefore would think twice about walking nonchalantly with my hands in my pockets a few feet in front of baton carrying riot equipped police and dogs. Now I realise this is not an offence, but I would think shows a serious lack of common sense.

 

The action by the policeman was in absence of other evidence probably over the top. However I do feel some action was required to remove this hands in pockets sauntering individual. Most of the video only shows the police personnel, but when the man is on the ground another person comes to assist him, this individual on turning away makes sure that he pulls up an article of clothing to obscure his face. This makes me wonder how close were the demonstrators, and what were the police advancing on when the push in the back occurred. Were there mitigating circumstances not shown in the short clip.

 

I would hesitate to make any judgement on what I have seen, obviously many of the opinions stressed here are quite polarised dependent on previous dealings or strong negative opinions of the police. There is also the normal trend where individuals see a set of circumstances as they would like them to be as opposed to what actually is occurring, e.g was it a push or a punch.

 

The major fact is that a man has died whether as a direct result of a police action, or an unfortunate timing of a heart attack that would have occurred anyway. The important thing is that a thorough and "independent" investigation is conducted by someone other than the police.

 

Sensible post bob.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no fun though! :sorcerer:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the fact you admit that the full story is not yet known, you seem pretty sure of what happened and what should now be done.

 

My point essentially is that the police are not above the laws they are paid to uphold. I take your point re the reporting of incidents, depending on the paper they'll always take the line that suits their agenda.

 

As for the insult i apologise, maybe a bit OTT. I just don't know how anyone can justify what appears to have happened. However, there's no point going round in circles so i'll just leave it at that.

 

You are right, we don't know what happened and at the end of the day, a family have lost their father which is a tragedy no matter what the circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the guy from where I used to work,I would buy a paper from him he also delivered to the building I worked in and was friendly with the security guard.I can say without doubt he was NOT a trouble maker he was a big football fan and was more than anything probably trying to get home to watch the England game.Some peiople need to know the facts before poating.Sorry but some of the comments have upset me today.He was a decent guy END OF

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

This is from a dude who was at the protest,He does not claim to have witnessed the man being assaulted but the way the Police treated these PEACEFUL protesters is shocking, women too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Daniel873

05 Apr 09, 3:38pm (about 17 hours ago)

I was outside the Bank of England at the time. I didn't see what happened to Ian Tomlinson specifically, but the account given by police seems very suspect to me. I remember tensions really started to build in the crowd around 6:45pm, at which point we'd already been "kettled" in for over six hours with nobody being allowed to leave the (now very small) area. What especially got the crowd annoyed (which I don't think has been given much attention in the press) was that there were no toilet facilities, so people had to urinate on the streets. Some people attached a large banner around some fencing and put it against a building so the women could hide behind it and have a certain degree of privacy, but it's still very degrading. By about 6:45pm the place was starting to stink and we were all walking in our own urine and everyone wanted to go home. People then started to move towards the police lines on Threadneedle Street and demand to be released and started chanting "Let us out!", but were pushed back.

 

Then again at around 7pm the protesters moved again but this time they went towards the police barricade on Cornhill street (there seemed to be more press at that end on the other side of the police lines so we thought we could get some attention on what was happening). The police demanded that we move back and started pushing us back with their riot shields, in response some of the protesters at the front started to sit down and refused to move, the police soon stopped pushing. After a while (I guess about 7:15pm) the riot police without any warning very aggressively and indiscriminately baton charged the entire crowd (including those sitting down), knocking at least a few dozen people to the ground, some of who were inadvertently trampled on by other fleeing protesters before getting to or being pulled to their feet. I also saw police hitting people from behind with their shields and batons (sometimes on the head) even though they were only trying to get away. This was by far the single most aggressive (and dangerous) police action during the day, and I remember thinking at the time that somebody could have been killed in that.

 

According to media reports Mr. Tomlinson was found dead on this very street at 7:25pm. Although as I said earlier I did not see what happened to him and do not claim to have witnessed it directly; I find it quite difficult to believe that someone within a crowd on a certain street just happened to fall dead of "natural causes" within minutes of police very violently baton charging said crowd on said street. Just what are the odds?":detective:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A can say X , B can say Y, they might both be right and be complete opposite perspectives. Often it is best not to judge, it's not like a referee giving a pen because the crowd makes a noice. You need the full picture.

 

The Full pictureThe Full Picture

 

Select video 1

Edited by H2
didn't work
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know the guy from where I used to work,I would buy a paper from him he also delivered to the building I worked in and was friendly with the security guard.I can say without doubt he was NOT a trouble maker he was a big football fan and was more than anything probably trying to get home to watch the England game.Some peiople need to know the facts before poating.Sorry but some of the comments have upset me today.He was a decent guy END OF

 

It's a shocking abuse, mate. There was a serious point in my post. It's not much solace, but that officer will probably remember this for the rest of his days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

H2 I fully agree what you are saying my comments were not about Ians death just referring to a guy I knew and giving a personal view of him.None of us were there and we all know it situations like that tempers get frayed on either side people on both sides look for any excuse to fight.The truth will probably never come out and as Heaven 98 says that cop will have to live with it for the rest of his life,not something I would wish on my worst enemy.

Edited by Romfordjt
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know the guy from where I used to work,I would buy a paper from him he also delivered to the building I worked in and was friendly with the security guard.I can say without doubt he was NOT a trouble maker he was a big football fan and was more than anything probably trying to get home to watch the England game.Some peiople need to know the facts before poating.Sorry but some of the comments have upset me today.He was a decent guy END OF

 

Yes, but not just some. You can piece together what you have. He may well have been a decent guy END OF, but you cannot say "without doubt". Some people had no doubt about Anthony Blunt. The guy may be totally innocent, but then he may not, none of us know, None of us know all the facts.

 

that said, like you I'd probably defend someone I believed was an innocent party too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its human nature to defend those you know from attack by others mate, I have before defended somebody who I believed was innocent and ended up realising the truth eventually that I had been lied to.My apologies for the spelling mistakes when in rant mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

* News

* UK news

* G20 police assault on Ian Tomlinson

 

Video reveals G20 police assault on man who died

 

Exclusive footage obtained by the Guardian shows Ian Tomlinson, who died during G20 protests in London, was attacked from behind by baton?wielding police officer

 

* Paul Lewis

* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 April 2009 17.53 BST

* Article history

 

The Guardian obtained this footage of Ian Tomlinson at a G20 protest in London, shortly before he died. It shows Tomlinson, who was not part of the demonstration, being assaulted from behind and pushed to the ground by baton-wielding police Link to this video

 

Dramatic footage obtained by the Guardian shows that the man who died at last week's G20 protests in London was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton?wielding police officer in riot gear.

 

Moments after the assault on Ian Tomlinson was captured on video, he suffered a heart attack and died.

 

The Guardian has handed a dossier of evidence to the police complaints watchdog.

 

It sheds new light on the events surrounding the death of the 47-year-old newspaper seller, who had been on his way home from work when he was confronted by lines of riot police near the Bank of England.

 

The submission to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) includes a collection of testimonies from witnesses, along with the video footage, shot at around 7.20pm, which shows Tomlinson at Royal Exchange Passage.

 

The film reveals that as he walks, with his hands in his pockets, he does not speak to the police or offer any resistance.

 

A phalanx of officers, some with dogs and some in riot gear, are close behind him and try to urge him forward.

 

A Metropolitan police officer appears to strike him with a baton, hitting him from behind on his upper thigh.

 

Moments later, the same policeman rushes forward and, using both hands, pushes Tomlinson in the back and sends him flying to the ground, where he remonstrates with police who stand back, leaving bystanders to help him to his feet.

 

The man who shot the footage, a fund manager from New York who was in London on business, said: "The primary reason for me coming forward is that it was clear the family were not getting any answers."

 

The Guardian's dossier also includes a sequence of photographs, taken by three different people, showing the aftermath of the attack, as well as witness statements from people in the area at the time.

 

A number of witnesses provided time and date-stamped photographs that substantiate their accounts.

 

Some said they saw police officers attack Tomlinson.

 

Witnesses said that, prior to the moment captured on video, he had already been hit with batons and thrown to the floor by police who blocked his route home.

 

One witness, Anna Branthwaite, a photographer, described how, in the minutes before the video was shot, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street.

 

"A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him," she said.

 

"It wasn't just pushing him ? he'd rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable.

 

"It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.

 

"So it wasn't just that the officer had pushed him ? it became an assault.

 

"And then the officer picked him up from the back, continued to walk or charge with him, and threw him.

 

"He was running and stumbling. He didn't turn and confront the officer or anything like that."

 

The witness accounts contradict the official version of events given by police.:sorcerer:

 

In an official statement on the night of Tomlinson's death, the Metropolitan police made no reference to any contact with officers and simply described attempts by police medics and an ambulance crew to save his life after he collapsed ? efforts they said were marred by protesters throwing missiles as first aid was administered .

 

The force said officers had created a cordon around Tomlinson to give him CPR.

 

"The officers took the decision to move him as during this time a number of missiles - believed to be bottles - were being thrown at them," it said.

 

Yesterday, the IPCC began managing an investigation by City of London police into the circumstances of Tomlinson's death after the Guardian published photographs of him on the ground and witness statements indicated he had been assaulted by police officers.

 

The IPCC commissioner for London, Deborah Glass, said: "Initially, we had accounts from independent witnesses who were on Cornhill, who told us that there had been no contact between the police and Mr Tomlinson when he collapsed."

 

"However, other witnesses who saw him in the Royal Exchange area have since told us that Mr Tomlinson did have contact with police officers.

 

"This would have been a few minutes before he collapsed. It is important that we are able to establish as far as possible whether that contact had anything to do with his death."

 

The IPCC added that Tomlinson was captured on CCTV walking onto Royal Exchange Passage.

 

"This is the aspect of the incident that the IPCC is now investigating," it said.

 

It was here the video was shot. A post mortem carried out by a Home Office pathologist last Friday revealed Tomlinson died of a heart attack.

 

Prior to seeing the dossier of evidence, Tomlinson's family said in a statement: "There were so many people around where Ian died, and so many people with cameras, that somebody must have seen what happened in the Royal Exchange passageway.

 

"We need to know what happened there and whether it had anything to do with Ian's death.

 

"We know that some people who were at the protest may not feel comfortable talking to the police.

 

"People are putting pictures on the internet, writing on blogs and talking to journalists. But we really need them to talk to the people who are investigating what happened."

 

? The Guardian's Ian Tomlinson video is on YouTube if you wish to embed it on your website or blog.

 

 

Going home minding his own business and NOT part of the protest, ends up being assaulted and later dies of a heart attack.Looks that way to me. So who do we believe, witnesses at the protest, the video or the Police IPCC commissioner for London, Deborah Glass,:qqb016:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police are under incredible stress, having to make split second decisions to safeguard members of the public

It's also been over 48 hours now, lessons have been learned and a raft of new measures have been put in place

So can we now draw a line under this and move on

:sarcasm:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Busby !

Channel 4 news has the footage from another angle (from their own cameras).

 

A bit more extended than the other footage and plainly shows the copper taking a swipe at the guys leg from behind with the baton, then the guy goes down. Shortly afterwards the copper is seen talking to another officer, baton still cocked over his shoulder whilst the dead guys walks away to the right of camera.

 

This officer and others have yet to come forward. Obviously wanting to get their stories straight and probably hoping for some CCTV windfall that shows the guy giving them the the Barry Fergusons and therefore all the justification they need.

 

Edit: breaking news.

"It is understood that the officer in question has now come forward to speak to the IPCC. "

Link to post
Share on other sites

As bill hicks said, it's all in how you view the tape....

 

 

...For example, if you view it in reverse, you see the police officer help the man to his feet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: breaking news.

"It is understood that the officer in question has now come forward to speak to the IPCC. "

 

I think he may be charged with assault, due to the media clamour. All we can see is the officer push Tomlinson with little or no reason. If that is all that happened it was totally unjustified.

 

But there may be circumstances which we do not know about which could justify his actions.

 

I would suspect he is trained to push protesters out of the way, to prevent various levels of disorder.There would appear to have been a fair amount of protesters in the area at the time and we do not know what their behaviour was like. Perhaps a hundred yards away they were forming a mob, breaking windows etc and the police thought Tomlinson was part of the group.

 

No matter it is very sad that he died.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst I do not think polis are angels, these particular guys were trying to do an unenviable job and control the situation. It is vital that they stamp their authority on the situation or they could be overrun by rioters (ahem, I mean "protestors"). What else could they do? arrest him? Not practical IMO. If he was a wee ned coming out of a nightclub being a wide boy, he would have deserved that push, the fact that he was an old ned in a potential riot situation does not change anything IMO. The fact he died afterwards is unfortunate, but I do not believe anything should be done against the officers involved and I still think it is irresponsible reporting to suggest he was completely innocent.

 

if the officers involved were so sure of their actions,why did none of them come forward and admit to pushing the guy to the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had the opportunity to watch the video. From a personal point of view if I was in what I suspect anyone of intelligence even only at a minimal level would know that they were in the vicinity of an extremely volatile set of circumstances. In my own case I therefore would think twice about walking nonchalantly with my hands in my pockets a few feet in front of baton carrying riot equipped police and dogs. Now I realise this is not an offence, but I would think shows a serious lack of common sense.

 

The action by the policeman was in absence of other evidence probably over the top. However I do feel some action was required to remove this hands in pockets sauntering individual. Most of the video only shows the police personnel, but when the man is on the ground another person comes to assist him, this individual on turning away makes sure that he pulls up an article of clothing to obscure his face. This makes me wonder how close were the demonstrators, and what were the police advancing on when the push in the back occurred. Were there mitigating circumstances not shown in the short clip.

 

I would hesitate to make any judgement on what I have seen, obviously many of the opinions stressed here are quite polarised dependent on previous dealings or strong negative opinions of the police. There is also the normal trend where individuals see a set of circumstances as they would like them to be as opposed to what actually is occurring, e.g was it a push or a punch.

 

The major fact is that a man has died whether as a direct result of a police action, or an unfortunate timing of a heart attack that would have occurred anyway. The important thing is that a thorough and "independent" investigation is conducted by someone other than the police.

 

There is no justification for a member of the public to be assaulted by the Police, no matter what is going on in the vicinity. The only occasion I would consider force a reasonable response in these situations is when riot police are faced with rioters, rioting. Otherwise restraint has to be shown.

 

This democracy is 800 years old and people MUST have the right to peaceful protest.

 

Some of the comments on this thread are dissapointing, but perhaps not surprising, given the way our democractic rights have been eroded under New Labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
King of the North
if the officers involved were so sure of their actions,why did none of them come forward and admit to pushing the guy to the ground.

 

Because, as has already been pointed out, ACAB.

 

I was in London during the time of the stop the war protest a few years ago. I wasn't at the protest, but was outside a pub near to Hyde park, where it finished. As the road quickly filled up with people from the protest (ordinary people, not a 'swampy' type caricature in sight), the police decided to clear the area.

 

Never have I witnessed a more deliberately aggressive, confrontational group of people than those coppers. Squaring up to people who asked why they had to move, they were just having a drink outside a pub. No wonder these protests degenerate into riots - the Police obviously decide they need to go in hard which sets the tone for the entire event they are supposed to be policing.

 

Some of these muppets probably joined up for the chance to be involved in days like that. Thugs in uniforms.

 

The copper that pushed this news vendor deserves imprisonment. But will it happen? Will it feck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The copper that wacked him should be knighted.

That ersehole that died could have been a suicide bomber/gun man/knifer.

Well done the Rozzers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo

The Police are racist as well. I heard that one of the guys arrested for peacefully blagging laptops from the RBS office was black. Thats defo racist that is for arresting him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Lyon

Mods I think you should close the thread now as the two previous posters have lowered the tone of the debate to unacceptable standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo
Mods I think you should close the thread now as the two previous posters have lowered the tone of the debate to unacceptable standards.

 

Racist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to understand how anybody can describe pushing someone on their face "reasonable force" when he was walking away at the time.

 

Wonder if anybody defending the police's actions has had a chance to watch the youtube videos I posted earlier yet. Maybe if they did they'd understand the real reason these things get so hostile. Yes there is inevitably a minority of idiots who want to cause trouble but the vast majority of people attending are looking to exercise their right to peaceful protest. The police, through their actions, are clearly attempting to diminish that right over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right, we don't know what happened and at the end of the day, a family have lost their father which is a tragedy no matter what the circumstances.

 

Well blow me down-Thank feck your not on jury service.By watching a video 100's of miles away,you have called the guy drunk then to top it off a nerd.Any chance of telling me the lottery numbers in advance?

 

 

 

When i see an actual flesh and blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy the policeman,I do not have to ask myself which side i am on.

(George Orwell)

Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson

This is a deeply dispiriting thread. When I watched the footage, the first thing I thought was the chap's behaviour was odd. He was moving slowly, almost as though he was dazed - and lo and behold, some accounts say he'd already been struck. Add that to the point that he had a heart attack subsequently, and well...

 

Have you ever been out somewhere and suddenly felt ill? I know I have. The response of many in that situation is to sit down somewhere and rest (but this chap couldn't), or walk home gingerly and carefully (which he appears to have been doing). He was in the wrong place at the wrong time - but the last thing on earth he deserves is to actually have his complete innocence questioned, as one or two have had the brass neck to do on this thread.

 

More generally, it's really quite simple. You either believe in the right of people to protest in a democracy or you don't. Globalisation and capitalism have led to horrific iniquity on a humungous scale - and the idea that people are no longer allowed to say so disgusts me. And sure, you have a few intent on causing trouble; a few others who wouldn't know what on earth to do in a world in which they didn't themselves benefit from capitalism. But then you have others - many, many others - with perfectly reasonable views, principles, and the human rights to protest in such regard.

 

Most of those protesting last week weren't interested in trouble at all - and I'd love to know how many castigating them themselves defended our invasion of Iraq on the grounds that "we have the freedom to protest - those in awful regimes don't". What the police do in these situations is simple. They pen demonstrators into a small area, don't allow them to leave, and don't even allow them to go to the toilet. Hardly surprisingly, anger tends to result - as it would among any of us. In many ways, it's precisely how football supporters were once treated: like animals, even though the vast majority of us never warranted it.

 

But if you're ever unfortunate enough to be attacked by a member of the police, whatever you do, don't come crying for sympathy on here. Oh no. They were "just doing their job". You were obviously up to something - they've never been known to violently overreact, have they? This chap posed no threat whatsoever, yet was struck from behind regardless. And isn't it ironic how the constant defence of the police on here suddenly vanishes whenever Hearts visit Glasgow, and we're subjected to the excesses of Strathclyde's finest? If the Met were "just doing their job", so surely do their counterparts in Glasgow - yet that's regarded as somehow different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A post on another forum from a guy who was at the protest:

 

In response to a claim that police were trying to disperse protesters -

 

I was actually at the protest where this happened and this is exactly what they did NOT do. The riot police used a tactic called 'kettling' where they form lines to split up the main body of protesters and refuse to let anyone leave. This results in a lot of pushing and shoving, and occasionally some baton charges. In other words, rushing.

 

So, why exactly are our police actively trying to limit the right of assembly and protest? Answers on a postcard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The copper that wacked him should be knighted.

That ersehole that died could have been a suicide bomber/gun man/knifer.

Well done the Rozzers.

 

Did you honestly think that was a remotely funny post when you were writing it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still trying to understand how anybody can describe pushing someone on their face "reasonable force" when he was walking away at the time.

.

 

You're making it up as you go along.

You said earlier he was punched in the head. Now he's pushed on his face yet his face looks remakably clean for somone pushed onto a concrete pavement don't you think ?

 

Truth is, he was pushed in the back, fell over and died later.

How can you discuss "reasonable force" when you can't even decide what force was actually used ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
shaun.lawson
In case anyone is interested, here is how the British police now deal with peaceful protest:

 

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2009/04//426087.mp4

 

As you can see djf, those streets were clearly packed to the rafters with lunatics, hooligans, terrorists and n'er do wells intent on bringing chaos to the capital and undermining our proud democracy. What else could the poor old plod do but charge them? The protesters' chant of "this is not a riot!" was obviously code for "we're here to murder each and every one of you".

 

It makes you proud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're making it up as you go along.

You said earlier he was punched in the head. Now he's pushed on his face yet his face looks remakably clean for somone pushed onto a concrete pavement don't you think ?

 

Truth is, he was pushed in the back, fell over and died later.

How can you discuss "reasonable force" when you can't even decide what force was actually used ?

 

So you're gonna explain to me how some guy with his hands in his pockets gets pushed to the ground but doesn't connect his face with the pavement.

 

Is this really all you have? A punch, a shove - what difference does it make? Both are attempts at physical contact to cause physical harm.

 

I'm not going to sit here and debate semantics in some petty point-scoring attempt. I've made my stance perfectly clear. The police officer was completely out of line and assaulted Mr Tomlinson.

 

Let's wait till the second post-mortem comes back and see what that says. I struggle to believe a man is hit with a baton, pushed to the ground then has a heart-attack by coincidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As you can see djf, those streets were clearly packed to the rafters with lunatics, hooligans, terrorists and n'er do wells intent on bringing chaos to the capital and undermining our proud democracy. What else could the poor old plod do but charge them? The protesters' chant of "this is not a riot!" was obviously code for "we're here to murder each and every one of you".

 

It makes you proud.

 

Shaun. Perhaps you are forgetting about the invisible bottles all protest mobs are now carrying. As you will remember from the initial police reports after Mr Tomlinson's death - the police faced a constant hail of them from the baying mob.

 

It's kinda weird how they've completely stopped mentioning them since the video footage came out but i'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're making it up as you go along.

You said earlier he was punched in the head. Now he's pushed on his face yet his face looks remakably clean for somone pushed onto a concrete pavement don't you think ?

 

Truth is, he was pushed in the back, fell over and died later.

How can you discuss "reasonable force" when you can't even decide what force was actually used ?

 

For goodness sake. The officer did a stupid stupid thing. There's no way he thought for one moment that if he attacked the guy he was going to end up dead. As I said, he'll live with that unwanted memory for the rest of his life, which is surely punishment enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you honestly think that was a remotely funny post when you were writing it?

 

 

 

Agree- Probably typing naked with an orange in his mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For goodness sake. The officer did a stupid stupid thing. There's no way he thought for one moment that if he attacked the guy he was going to end up dead. As I said, he'll live with that unwanted memory for the rest of his life, which is surely punishment enough.

 

But if he had'nt been pushed he may never have fell over,as you put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But if he had'nt been pushed he may never have fell over,as you put it.

 

opp's- should end as felix put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading a bit of this thread, I feel the guy was simply walking through the area to go home, he didn't like the situation he was in, his heart started racing a bit, he felt faint/unwell, he tried to calm himself down by slowing everything down a bit, the policeman then pushed him to the ground thinking he's a protester, he get's up, the pressure of the incident has sent his heart over the edge and he's had a heart attack.

 

I feel so sorry for the guy, I hope the policeman is really feeling bad for what he has done and learns something from it, if not, I hope something terrible happens to him, his actions have caused death to another human being, under the eyes of the law, this IS murder, undoubtedly the good old British Justice system will make sure there is no evidence linking the 2 incidents and he'll get let free to kill again. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...