G20 protest death was not as simple as the Left portray
Dear Sunny Hundal,
So soon after my letter to you explaining your naivety over the police’s handling of the G20 protestors, the stakes have been raised with the release of a video showing the last moments of Ian Tomlinson, who tragically died of a heart attack at the protests. The Guardian said on their website last night that the footage below ”shows Ian Tomlinson, who died during G20 protests in London, was attacked from behind by baton–wielding police officer.” Needless to say the left-wing blogosphere is up in arms, with Liberal Conspiracy, Tom Miller, Pickled Politics, Lib Dem Voice, Bloggerheads, Next Left, Quaequam and Harry’s Place all venting their anger. Words like “brutality” and “assault” are now being thrown around without any consideration, so I thought I would provide you with a considerably less hysterical reaction to the video.
On first viewing, it is easy to throw abuse at the police for their treatment of this man but this video from the Guardian, and indeed the reaction from many bloggers, shows how easily such a video can be distorted. I want to pick out some examples of this because they deserve attention:
1. The video said Ian Tomlinson was “attempting to get home from work” – oh, really? So he just happened to be wearing plain clothes and accidentally found himself in front of a police cordon that was clearing the area of protestors during a mass gathering around the G20 summit? Please, don’t insult our intelligence. This was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to portray Ian as an innocent bystander when in reality he was very much part of the protest.
2. The video said Ian was “walking away from them” – this is outright deceit, in my opinion. Yes, he was physically facing the opposite direction but if you watch the video carefully you will see that he is deliberately antagonising the police by walking slowly right in front of them as the cordon tries to move people down the street. He was clearly antagonising them with his hands nonchallantly in his pockets, wandering around just a few steps ahead of them. I’m also tempted to use the word ‘provocation’, such was his obvious willingness and intention to disrupt the police’s movements. Notice that everyone else was at least 20 yards ahead of him because it was obvious that the police wanted people to stay well in front of them as they moved the protestors away from this area. The police left him on the ground because they could see perfectly well what he was doing to their efforts to move people on and they were having none of his antics. Do not paint Ian as an innocent bystander – he was exactly where he wanted to be, blocking the police and antagonising them.
3. The video said that “witnesses say him dazed and stumbling along the road before he collapsed” – this may be true, but in the seconds before a heart attack you can hardly blame this on the police. He was sitting down, injured and unharmed, on the video footage and appears to get up with the help of another protestor and then walk away.
Then we come to the language used by the Left to describe this incident. Words like “brutality” and “assault” might seem appropriate, but seeing as the footage shows Ian antagonising the police I don’t think “brutality” is really appropriate. “Assault” is more complicated, as shoving someone over is arguably some form of assault regardless of the context. The eyewitness account of Anna Braithwaite suggests that this footage actually missed the beginning of Ian’s contact with the police, which may have been going for a minute or so before the video footage began. She described an officer picking Ian up off the floor, having previously pushed him over, only for him to be thrown down again. If this is true, it lends credence to both our arguments. You will say that this is more evidence of police brutality and an ‘over the top’ reaction, whereas I would say that it just shows how determined Ian was to antagonise and irritate the police officers by repeatedly interfering with their attempts to move him and other protestors away from this area and he was never going to get away with it – and why should he. When the police tell you to move, you move – no questions asked, no second chances need to be given.
I’m not going to sit here and defend everything that the police did at the G20. Judging by the comments on all the left-wing blogs, the vast majority of people are decrying police brutality and blaming the entire police force for something that is ultimately a single incident with a single man. I’m not going to write this incident off as irrelevant or unimportant and an investigation into his death is the right thing to do, but it is quite clear to me that people like you have done everything possible to make Ian out to be some kind of martyr for protestors everywhere. Furthermore, the anti-police sentiment on lefty blogs this morning is appalling. I’ve even read several comparisons to the Jean Charles De Menezes case, which is utterly disgusting. To compare a botched anti-terrorism operation to a protestor who was doing everything in their power to infuriate the police during a mass protest is outrageous and totally counter-productive. I agree that the police should not have commented on this case before collecting all the evidence and I very much doubt that every officer behaved impeccably throughout the whole G20 summit. However, unlike you, I’m willing to use a little perspective.
On the issue of perspective, I will leave you with this footage of what the police had to deal with at the G20. The police were under attack from a large number of protestors at the G20, so let us not forget in amongst all this clammering for ‘the police to be held to account’ that they have an unbelievably difficult job and the last thing they need to someone trying to antagonise them even further.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
One factual point – the official version since the beginning has been that Tomlinson was an innocent bysander on his way home from work. Makes no odds to me whether he was or was not, since police reaction to him was so clearly disproportionate. But if you think he wasn’t, I think you’ll need a stronger case. The fact that you think it makes a difference if he was a protester is very revealing of your attitude.
Well, this was my first viewing of the video. I have to say that it doesn’t meet the hype that I’ve heard over the last week in the media.
The riot officers are clearly trying to move people on. They have the power to do so. He is clearly trying not to be moved on. “Smart-Alec” is the word that springs to mind.
He is not in a playground acting cocky to the dinner ladies. He is being asked to move on by riot police. He is not doing so; he is trying to hold them up. That is not a clever or co-operative thing to do.
It is terrible that he died, but I am not (yet) willing to blame the officers involved.
Patently, I had a similar reaction.
Alix, an innocent bystander would not have been antagonising police for several minutes on end – so in that respect, it does make a difference. The fact that he was part of the protest, as demonstrated by his reported actions both on the footage and beforehand, is what’s important. The fact that you ignored all of my points in your comment is also very revealing of your attitude.
I agree he wasn’t the ‘innocent bystander’ he’s being portrayed as, but there is zero justification for what the police did.
And using the ‘this is what other protesters were doing’ card is weak. Perhaps when I got attacked by some Asians I would’ve been justified wandering into the nearest kebab shop and taking it out on them? Not an exact parallel, but close enough to highlight the fallacy of your point.
You would be far better off pointing out the protesters apparently attacked the paramedics trying to help Tomlinson, and if the police are going to be pursued through the courts, then so should those protesters who may also have a responsibility for his death.
As for anti-police sentiment on the blogs, well let’s be honest it generally reflects anti-police feeling across communities. And most of that feeling is entirely down to the government and the police themselves. Comparisons with de Menezes are plainly ridiculous though.
The thing I’m still unclear about is that after being knocked to the ground he gets up and walks away, clearly seemingly unharmed – he even spends a few moments swearing at the police afterwards. There’s been no clear wording on exactly how long it was after this that he suffered a heart attack – the Guardian says ‘moments’ but that could be anything up to 15 minutes in media speak. The cries of ‘POLICE MURDER’ are totally unjustified and childish. If it can be shown that he died as a direct result of what happened here (seems unlikely – he surely must have had some form of pre-existing condition) then there’s still no intent on the part of the police, other than to get him out of their way.
Also, what Obsidian said.
Bearing in mind that Ian Tomlinson worked in a newsagents, I don’t see how this comment stands up: “The video said Ian Tomlinson was “attempting to get home from work” – oh, really? So he just happened to be wearing plain clothes”.
Those clothes he’s wearing in the film are exactly the sorts of clothes worn by plenty of people who work in newsagents that I’ve been into wear. Unless it’s different round where you live and all the newsagents wear monocle, waistcoats and top hats … why are you so sure that those aren’t the clothes of someone was working in?
Speaking as a Tory, I must disagree with your position here.
You may be right about his ‘nonchalance’.
You may be right about his ‘just walking home’.
But I have to disagree with you about whether or not this was ‘brutal’. There’s no question – it was brutal. The man had his back to the officer, who took a run up and hit him. Hard.
Thumping someone hard enough that they hit the ground some distance away is brutal. Doing it from behind is the act of a coward.
To say that he was ‘unharmed’ is also verging on inaccurate. He was conscious, yes. He was challenging the actions of the police, yes. But he was harmed. He was bashed to the floor by a ‘public servant’, simply for being in the way.
And he died for his ‘crime’.
If it had been a protester clobbering a police officer in a back alley, and the officer had subsequently died of heart failure, there would have been outcry and a murder investigation. Yet all we get here is – nothing. This MUST be investigated, and there must be consequences.
Otherwise there’s no hope left for our police.
D
Your response to this video seems patently ridiculous.
Fist of all, considering the official line- covered in all media outlets- including the ones who have been supporting the police is that he was a newspaper vendor on his way home from work. Saying ‘he is in plane clothes’ smacks of idiocy- not everyone goes to work in a suit and tie.
Secondly your analysis of him antagonising the police misses an important fact- he has the right to walk home from work without being molested by the police- if this had been yobs abusing him you would have questioned why he didn’t move faster. If he was not part of the protest then police treating him as part of it was wrong, smacks of collective punishment and means that there treatment of him was unjustified- he was therefore within reason to put up a defense against them.
Thirdly- it is most certainly assault- as legally this term simply means intimidation/ fear of immediate violence. More technically the police have committed battery- ie the unlawful laying of hands on a person.
One of your posters also suggests that the left are blaming the whole police force for one persons actions. Each police officer is a representative of the state- they are wearing a uniform and are part of a chain of commend- they are not acting as individuals but as a collective. Therefore one police officers actions represents the actions of the state as a whole, so it is right to questions the ‘police’ as a whole rather than simply saying ‘oh it was jsut someone acting out’- if this is the case don’t employ thugs in the police service (not saying the police are thugs- but if you think you can’t control an officer then they shouldn’t be on the front line).
This whole thing smacks of collective covering-up by the police and the reaction of the right has been stupid to say the least. The video does not prove that the police’s actions lead to the mans heart attack but it certainly does prove unwarranted and unjustified attacks on a man availing himself of his legal right to walk the streets of London without being subjected to violence.
As tragic as his death is, anyone who works in a Cardiac unit will not be able to tell you when and were someone will suffer a heart attack and die, it is the last enigma of anyone life, when we die. Just like any other large gathering, someone will die of a heart attack, stroke, asthma attack or other manner of death. You just cannot get away from that fact.
He was pushed to the ground and although it seems that he was an innocent bystander, just look at the video and you will see him being obstructive and hindering the Police moving him on. He as the centre of several Police who it seems wanted him to move on but he did not.
How many minutes after he was pushed did he die? It seems from what is being banded about it was as soon as he sat up. Clearly this is not true.
The Police have a difficult job, but once again the lefties will have a martyr to rally around.
To me, if he had moved on, not been difficult and obstructive, he would not have had to be pushed, but this will be lost in the left wing clamour for a Police scalp, when the lefties should blame themselves for the trouble caused.
Had the london police an unblemished record for avoiding the deaths of passers by, I think I would be able to accept what you say subject to further investigation. Unfortunately their record from Jean de Menzes through to the innocent scotsman gunned down as a terrorist when he was carrying a chair leg does not justify an automatic presumption of innocence nor any allowance for provocation, particularly since the police themselves talked up the threat to civilised life as we know it in the City of London from the protesters. They are, after all, thoroughly trained to deal with all such eventualities aren’t they?
LFAT, I didn’t address the rest of your points because they were bloody daft. It is self-evident that pushing someone cannot be definitively traced as the single cause of a heart attack. I just thought you’d value a factual correction. Apparently he worked on one of the Evening Standard stalls, irony of ironies.
And no, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he was dawdling deliberately, even being rude over his shoulder, perhaps. But that doesn’t change the simple fact that he had his back to the police and his hands in his pockets. Unprovoked violence is simply not excusable in those circumstances, however irritating someone is. Given that the police spent much of the rest of the day facing down trouble-makers screaming in their faces, they ought to have been able to tell the difference.
He is quite clearly totally unprepared for the attack – watch the slow-mo and you’ll see he only manages to get his hands out of his pockets half way towards hitting the ground. Someone who was being deliberately confrontational would be prepared for a fall or a push, they wouldn’t be able to stop their natural reactions from kicking in. He was caught totally unawares.
Mind you, I don’t blame the officer so much as the culture and build-up among the police and media that stoked him/her up to the action.
For all those who are homing in on my comments about his plain clothes, please deal with point 1 AS A WHOLE – which includes the issue about him joining the protests, irrespective of what he was wearing or where he was heading to. Stop splitting hairs and address the whole point.
Jiggles: “one police officers actions represents the actions of the state as a whole” Are you serious? Are you actually serious? Does one teacher represent the entire profession? Does one doctor represent the entire profession? They’re all paid for by the state so presumably they represent the state as well? What rubbish.
Rich, thanks for seeing what is so blindingly obvious.
Richard T, the comparison with De Menezes is utterly useless and achieves nothing.
Alix: “he had his back to the police and his hands in his pockets. Unprovoked violence is simply not excusable in those circumstances” It was NOT unprovoked, this is my point (which, yet again, you failed to address). From the eyewitness accounts and from the video footage it is clear that he was deliberately provoking the officers by ignoring their instructions, repeatedly obstructing them and making their life as difficult as he possibly could. That is the most blatant provokation you could imagine. If he had been arrested for his actions rather than tragically dying, no-one on the Left would have even dared defend his actions. It’s only because you and many others are trying to make a martyr out of this guy that you are ignoring his own contribution to this volatile situation.
(comment deleted for breaking the rules of this blog)
It’s not “splitting hairs”, Tory.
You have presented his plain clothes as evidence of… something.
In fact, given that he worked in a news-agents they are evidence of nothing whatsoever, other than the fact that you have come wading into this debate without being on top of the basic details of the case.
In that position, I’d suggest you hold off haranguing other people for their simple-mindedness in future.
“he just happened to be wearing plain clothes”
As opposed to what exactly, a military uniform?
If he was obstructing the police they have ann answer, arrest him. I don;t know where in the manual they have a right to assault someone for “being provocative”
Well, you’re the one who raised the issue of his clothing – and right up near the start of your numbered list. What did you mean by your reference to “plain clothes” then?
For the second time, read the whole sentence: “So he just happened to be wearing plain clothes and accidentally found himself in front of a police cordon that was clearing the area of protestors during a mass gathering around the G20 summit?”
Of course people can go to work without a suit, in fact all the City workers were told not to wear suits that day. My point was that the Left are trying to portray him as some innocent bloke who was just casually minding his own business dressed in casual clothes and somehow got caught up in some brutal police violence when he was completely innocent. Why don’t you try to address that instead of taking half of one sentence out of context?
To be honest, the more commentors try to make a big deal out of one half of one sentence, it just makes me even more convinced that you are totally unable to tackle any of the rest of my post – which the likes of Alix and Mark have carefully avoided.
On another point, you wrote in one of your comments about that Ian Tomlinson’s behaviour, “is the most blatant provokation you could imagine”.
Do you *really* mean that? More blatant and provocative than, say, facing the police and swearing into their faces? Or waving a steel bar under their noses? Or a thousand and one other possible acts?
None of them more blatant provocation than walking away with your back turned?
Letters: I did read your whole sentence (and indeed the whole blog post). In amongst your other points, you chose to single out the clothing he was wearing as in some ways undermining the versions of events that have been told about him. That plank of your evidence doesn’t seem to me to stand up at all.
He’s wearing exactly the sort of clothing I’d have found unexceptional for someone who works in a newsagent and is heading home. None of the comments I’ve seen other people make imply that he was wearing something different.
So why did you mention his clothing at all? Can you give me a quote from anyone that implies we should have expected him to have had different clothing from that which he actually was wearing?
It’s you who is missing the point LFAT, twice over.
1. It doesn’t matter how rude or insulting or dawdly someone is being, or whether the’re ignoring your instructions or being unco-operative – if you’re a police officer in riot gear and they’re a pedestrian in trackie bottoms and their hands in their pockets you do NOT give them a bodily shove to the ground. The reaction is totally disproportionate.
2. You’re absolutely right in saying that “the left” would not be “martyring” him if he had merely been arrested for obstructing police or similar. The reason being that an arrest would have been a proportionate reaction if he was being unco-operative. In fact I don’t doubt many others were arrested on similar grounds that day. So, of course it’s the fact that he was shoved to the ground and NOT arrested that makes it important. I mean, I normally hate resorting to playground speak on blogs but, really, duh.
You are defending the indefensible – you’d be on far safer ground continuing to point out the discrepancies between the video and what the witnesses say. I’m certainly not disputing the fact that the witnesses statements don’t match up precisely with the video (see my comment on Lib Con) and it should be quite clear by now that I’m not disputing Tomlinson was possibly being obstreperous. You appear to have ignored this.
But some of the rest of what you’ve written is rubbish. You must expect to get picked up on it. Accept the corrections, press forward with the stuff that stands up. (Christ I’m even giving you hints now out of sheer pity).
Mark, you’re getting dull now. I have just explained point 1 from my post. His clothing is one of many little details that some bloggers and indeed newspapers are using to support his apparent innocence in all this, whereas I think it’s a complete red herring. The issue about “blatant provokation” is a hilariously weak attempt to deflect from the main content of my post. Obviously I meant that it was unquestionably an act of provokation, not that you couldn’t provoke the police more if you tried.
Alix: I certainly don’t need your charity, especially if your arguments are this repetitive and flawed. These are riot police, for gods sake. They are not there to be everyone’s best friend – they are there to put people in order. If it had been a group of regular uniform officers, this situation would have been very different because using force is presumably a very small part of their remit, but yet again you totally avoid the issue of how much sympathy you think someone like Ian deserves for repeatedly antagonising police officers in full riot gear during a mass protest.
If it were me, if I were in a situation where there was a protest going on which I was not personally associated with, and there were two sides in confrontation, I’d be standing in the no-man’s land too. In fact, if I’d been told that the protestors were probably violent, I’d stand as far away from them as possible, and as close to the police as possible. That’s what the police are for. I might keep my hands in my pockets and hunch my shoulders to make it clear that I was totally passive. I certainly wouldn’t expect to be roughly shoved to the ground by the police, to be pushed into the mob of protestors that the police had been telling me for weeks were likely to be violent and dangerous. I daresay I’d find that kind of experience stressful, disconcerting and bewildering.
Interesting perspective, Rob. However, the footage strongly suggests that everyone else apart from Ian was behaving themselves just fine and doing what the riot police wanted them to do. If the protestors were violent, sure, stay away from them, I certainly would – but the video footage does not show anyone else causing even the slightest fuss. In fact, it seems to contain a lot of passive bystanders and photographers, whereas Ian chose to take on the police.
The whole sentence then.
“So he just happened to be wearing plain clothes…
Yes, he just happened to be wearing plain clothes. (You obviously think this is significant of something, though you’re refusing to say what or how.)
…and accidentally found himself in front of a police cordon that was clearing the area of protestors during a mass gathering around the G20 summit?
Maybe. Do you know where his work was, where he was going from or to? Maybe he was on his way home, had had a few drinks, and was walking slowly, so the cordon caught up with him without him noticing. That’s a totally impossible scenario is it?
To be clear, I’m not saying I know the answers. I’m saying you don’t.
So when you insist that in reality he was very much part of the protest, you are simply inventing stuff, to suit your conclusions.
The video said Ian was “walking away from them” – this is outright deceit, in my opinion. Yes, he was physically facing the opposite direction but if you watch the video carefully you will see that he is deliberately antagonising the police by walking slowly right in front of them as the cordon tries to move people down the street. He was clearly antagonising them with his hands nonchallantly in his pockets, wandering around just a few steps ahead of them. I’m also tempted to use the word ‘provocation’, such was his obvious willingness and intention to disrupt the police’s movements.
What utter balls.
Even if what you say is true, and he was being “provocative” by walking slowly, then that would be grounds to ask him to move out of the way, not to knock him to the ground. There is such a thing as a proportionate response.
As I said on Lib Con, iIf he was NOT part of the protest, he would have either (a) been walking quickly away from the police to avoid the oncoming police cordon, (b) been facing the police and calmly explaining to them that he had just left work and was moving on quickly, or (c) not been anywhere near the whole situation.
“Ian chose to take on the police”
Should the police not have more discipline?
Indeed surely riot police should be the best disciplined of the lot??
The fact is that they did it because they could; not because it was necessary.
You should not defend it so readily, despite the lunacy of those calling it murder.
” totally avoid the issue of how much sympathy you think someone like Ian deserves”
That’s because it’s irrelevant, LFAT. Can you really not see that? It’s irrelevant if Ian Tomlinson was being a bit rude, or extremely rude, or didn’t eat healthily enough, or had a criminal record, or wouldn’t hand in a wallet if he found it in the street, or sometimes left pubs noisily after the footie. It would be irrelevant if he were an irreproachable blonde-mother-of-two with a law degree.
You are confusing yourself by trying to see this as a moral blame game. Fact: he was walking along with his hands in his pockets, not physically threatening the police. He may have been insulting them, being obstreperous and un-cooperative. Fact: someone shoved him hard to the ground. This is a disproportionate response. It’s very hard, LFAT, for me not to be repetitive when you repeatedly fail to grasp even the simplest points.
As for riot police, they are there to keep the law, no more, no less. In this instance, they attacked someone who was not breaking the law. Your cavalier attitude towards this, if representative of the wider Tory party, is deeply concerning.
…And somewhere, hidden between the emotions, the arguments, the entrenched positions and the misinterpretations, there lay, hidden, rejected, alone and abused, the truth.
Yes, the police action seems disproportionate.
No, they clearly didn’t have the intention of killing anybody.
Yes, it’s a tragedy that someone died.
No, we can’t objectively interpret the body language on display.
Yes, this matter requires further investigation.
What’s still to be cleared up: how long was it between the incident and the untimely demise of Mr Tomlinson? Was the policeman involved aware that his actions may have lead to somebody’s death? Is there any truth in reports of protesters obstructing paramedics later on? What was going on before the beginning of this video?
All the shouting is doing my head in…
Cjcjc and zara, the issues of ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’ are highly contentious in this situation. Hopefully you have noticed that at no point in my post did I praise the police, call their actions entirely justified or dismiss calls for an investigation. Sadly some of the other commentors missed this point entirely. What I am saying is that Ian chose to take on the police whereas everyone else had more sense than that. No-one can make any definitive judgements about what was going through the officers’ minds, but my post was very much intended to be a rebuttal to all those Lefty bloggers who seem to think that the police are the only ones to blame here when they are clearly not. Ian’s death is tragic, but the inferences being drawn by the Left about what happened and why are totally unsubstantiated.
Alix, I’m willing to hazard a guess that antagonising police officers is against the law. I am aware that someone shoved Ian to the ground. What you have totally failed to grasp if that this action has a huge and complicated context around it, as Stu rightly pointed out. Taking one shove in isolation without considering what happened before it and what caused it is distorting this situation to suit your own political purposes.
All comments will temporarily be held in moderation while I go to a meeting, back later.
LFAT, the point is, his “provocation” was the type species of passive resistance, which in the west has always been considered a fair form of protest. Annoying a police officer by not doing as you’re told isn’t grounds for him to assault you like this.
Whether the victim was as “innocent” as some are claiming is neither here nor there. Our police are expected to exercise restraint- or at least they used to be.
But of course, we live in a time when the police can just shoot you repeatedly in the head for being somebody they think might look like a terrorist. Plus ca change.
The policeman who pushed Tomlinson to the ground seems to have nothing in either hand. Wherefore the claim that he was hit by a police baton? Mr T may have been being bloody-minded about the whole business, but that doesn’t excuse cowardly and inappropriate action from a policeman. In N.I. during the 70’s such an action would have turned a rowdy demo into a riot. As according to all the “peaceful” demonstrators the Police were all over the place with CCTV minutely recording everybody there for the data bank, then it should be possible to trace Mr.T’s actions from the moment he entered the area.
LFAT- Yes I’m serious- For starters, just as one teacher’s or one doctor’s actions reflect badly one the whole of their profession the same occurs with the police.
The fact is that a police officer is identified by their badge number- they are part of the ‘the police force’- they are not, while in uniform, an individual citizen. Didn’t you teachers ever tell you on school trips that ‘while you are in uniform you represent the school- so bloody well behave’?
Furthermore, there is a chain of command in the police force- you are supposed to do as you are told. If an officer cannot be trusted to follow this line then they should not, as I said before, be on front line duty.
By allowing the officer to be on duty the police force, with the commander at the top, is effectively saying ‘we trust this officer to behave in a manner that we sanction’. Therefore, if that officer decides to violently push someone who their back to them then this suggests either a) the police force, by way of the commander, sanction this behaviour or b) that this officer should not have been allowed to be part of the force deployed to the protest- suggesting serious misjudgement by the commander and thus the ‘police force’.
The crux of this is that, police have powers above those of a normal citizen in order to carry out a job of protecting said normal citizen. When these powers are abused they are abused by someone who forms a collective part of, and is answerable to, the state- they are not done by a private individual but by someone who reflects the authority of the state.
If he was NOT part of the protest, he would have either (a) been walking quickly away from the police to avoid the oncoming police cordon, (b) been facing the police and calmly explaining to them that he had just left work and was moving on quickly, or (c) not been anywhere near the whole situation.
And that’s supposed to be what? An incontrovertible fact? A complete enumeration of every possible course of action of an individual who finds himself on the wrong side of a police line? What utter rubbish. I bet even you can come up with a (d), if you try really hard.
If you want to point out that “the inferences being drawn by the Left about what happened and why are totally unsubstantiated”, then good luck to you. But you might want to do it without producing your own bogus arguments, and without plucking your own totally unsubstantiated facts from thin air.
LFAT wrote:
who do you think they are? special robots kept in a warehouse for special occasions? they’re normal police supposedly trained to deal with crowds unruly or otherwise with the constant bearing in mind that they are still dealing with the public. i remember seeing an advert where a supposed yobbo was literally screaming blue murder in the officer’s face, the byline was that only the “best” could react accordingly. i cant help but feel that the boys in blue’s standards have since plummeted.
slouching along, hands in pockets does not warrant that level of treatment from OUR police force. no where in this clip does it show him turning round to abuse the officers, and when he sits up on the floor he still doesnt appear to be snarling or howling at them.
i come along here every now and then for a read and occasionally a chuckle, but today i’m just shocked and a bit disappointed at your pathetic analysis.
“What I am saying is that Ian chose to take on the police whereas everyone else had more sense than that.”
Brilliant. I had thought for a while that this was a comedy parody of a right-wing blog, but this has confirmed it.
Come clean – are you Charlie Brooker or Chris Morris?
Because surely no-one could really think that the footage we have seen shows some-one ‘taking on the police’ – really? Are you sure?
“I’m willing to hazard a guess that antagonising police officers is against the law.”
Then, if he had broken the law, they should have arrested him.
Hi LFAT, have left you a proper resonse here.
However, the footage strongly suggests that everyone else apart from Ian was behaving themselves just fine and doing what the riot police wanted them to do. If the protestors were violent, sure, stay away from them, I certainly would – but the video footage does not show anyone else causing even the slightest fuss. In fact, it seems to contain a lot of passive bystanders and photographers, whereas Ian chose to take on the police.
The others were a noisy crowd of people, some shouting, and about to be confronted by riot police. Not a safe place to be. A man of a nervous disposition would play safe and give the crowd a wide berth and stick to the safe area that has plenty of police in it to prevent trouble.
If he had a pre-existing heart condition he may have been panicky, sweating, having minor palpitations and generally trying to block everything out whilst he steadied his nerves. Head down, hands in pockets, don’t attract anyone’s attention and don’t make any sudden movements. Stay well clear of the shouting, stay near the police, that’s where it’s safe. Until suddenly it isn’t safe, and a riot police officer dumps you face-first into the pavement.
I’m not saying that this is exactly what happened and why, but it does fit perfectly with what I’ve seen (as, to be fair, do plenty of other scenarios). This is why it needs to be investigated, to rule out the worst-case scenarios if nothing else.
Rob, I’m glad to see that you retain an open mind about what happened, unlike many of the commentors here today. Personally, I don’t think his behaviour fits your description, seeing as if I was having heart trouble I would be on the ground pleading for help, but we can agree to disagree to that one.
Miller, your use of the words “clout”, “clobber”, “ABH” and “battery” are all beautiful examples of how you and many other Lefties have already made your mind up about what happened and why it happened. The fact that you’ve already stated that the police’s actions were “possibly a heavy factor” in Ian’s death shows how ridiculous the Left’s assumptions and conclusions are. Before any investigation has been completed, you are already pointing the finger at the police. You also seem to be under the impression that police officers are judged on the same basis as civilians when it comes to how they behave, which makes your post just bizarre to read.
Alix, yes, if the police matched the protestors in numbers during a protest then they could easily have arrested him. However, you don’t seem to realise that when it comes to riot police and mass protests, the police have very different objectives to a normal bobby on the beat. Containment and maintaining order becomes much greater priorities, particularly if Ian was disobeying them and antagonising them (which I suspect he was). Geeesh, I can’t believe I even have to explain that to someone.
Ben, I’m referring to his antagonism – call it what you want.
Roy, the police do certainly have to keep in mind they are dealing with the public. However, with riot police (who were undoubtedly necessary across London on that day) they work on different thresholds in terms of what they tolerate and what they do not. That’s what distinguishes riot police from normal police. If Ian was deliberately winding up riot police (who, as I just explained to Alix, are presumably looking to defuse situations) then the blame is not as one-sided as you and many others would like it to be.
Larry, my interpretation is no better or worse than yours or anyone else’s. It fits with the video footage and rather than stomping your feet, you could at least try to form an argument against my point.
Jiggles, you too have already made your mind about how innocent Ian is so I’m not going to bother with your comment.
GOM, I hope that the CCTV can help out as well because there are clearly a lot more questions than answers at the moment.
Ian B, you also seem to be assuming that his few-second wander was the beginning and end of this situation whereas I seriously doubt that was the case, particularly after reading the eyewitness testimony.
Larry, my interpretation is no better or worse than yours or anyone else’s.
Well, it’s no better, certainly.
Thanks for the pointless comment.
The point is that to publish any old bilge you fancy and then defend it as being only an interpretation, no better or worse than any other is pretty much rock-bottom as debating techniques go.
Hmmm, so what word would you use to describe giving my take on the video footage, just like everyone else (including you) has done today? I think ‘interpretation’ is a pretty damn good word to use, seeing as we’re all debating something that we didn’t witness first hand. Your interpretation was that Ian “had had a few drinks, and was walking slowly, so the cordon caught up with him without him noticing.” You see what you did there, you gave one interpretation of the events.
Honestly, you really are making yourself look ridiculous now.
LFAT- this has nothing to do with guilt of innocence of the gentleman- because there is no crime for which the official sanction is assault and battery by the police.
If he broke the law arrest him, if he tires to be violent restrain him- the police did neither.
You will note from the video that when he was on the ground the police made no effort to try and arrest him or officially caution him for his behaviour. While I would certainly not claim it as proof of his innocent- surely even you can agree it lends strong credence to the nation that he had not committed any crime that the police thought worthy of action.
Finally- you said ‘If he was NOT part of the protest, he would have either (a) been walking quickly away from the police to avoid the oncoming police cordon, (b) been facing the police and calmly explaining to them that he had just left work and was moving on quickly, or (c) not been anywhere near the whole situation’
Just because this may be your reaction, indeed may be the reaction of the majority of people, does not mean that he had to do the same- aside from the fact that there could have been 100 reasons why he chose to stay nearer the police than the protestors the fact remains that there is no law against stupidity
Ian B, you also seem to be assuming that his few-second wander was the beginning and end of this situation whereas I seriously doubt that was the case, particularly after reading the eyewitness testimony.
Nothing of the sort. I’m saying that being awkward doesn’t give the police the right to lay into somebody like that. It is beyond dispute that this man represented no physical threat to either the police or anyone else present. If you are naive enough to support a police freedom to smack people around with batons on a whim, you really haven’t got a grasp about what the position of policing in a free nation is.
Jiggles and Ian B, I have never said that I’m thrilled with the way that the police behaved, but unlike some people I think the context is crucial. You obviously didn’t read the points I made earlier in the thread about riot police. Their objectives are completely different from regular police officers and it is astonishing that you and Alix and several others seem to think that when surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of protestors, the police should act just as they would down the local high street on Saturday afternoon. Can you imagine what would happen if the police tried to arrest every single protestor who starting shouting and swearing in public (which is illegal), who charged at the officers (which is illegal), who threw something at the police (which is illegal) etc etc. These are riot police dealing with a huge protest, not a bored local bobby.
I am amazed at the complete and utter bending of facts to suit a situation that many on the left and those who detest the Police are doing.
The man was obstruction the Police, after a riot had taken place where their traditional helmeted colleagues had been attacked, some being hit over the head with iron and wooden poles leaving at least two Officers with head injuries. They had also been pelted with bricks, bottles and street furniture.
Their better equipped colleagues took over because of the violence by these so called ‘peaceful demonstrators’ and after being penned up for a few hours they were allowed to move on. More disorder took place.
Do you seriously think the Police will let rioters stand around waiting for them to start up trouble again? No, anyone who thinks so is just plain daft, or as we see on here and other blogs, downright anti Police.
The man was being asked to move on, a number of Police were round him and it was obvious that he was playing to the others by hindering the lawful order, against Sec 5 of Public Order Act to move on. He was clearly being obstructive and such behaviour soon after a riot or large amount of disorder could lead to further trouble. So he was pushed and fell over, nothing more than that, an every night occurrence with disorder on the streets when drunks and troublemakers turn out of clubs.
He then got up and walked off, several minutes later, we are not told how long, he collapsed in a street some distance away. He was then helped by the Police (Nazis thugs out of control by some on here and other blogs) and given CPR. The Officers helping the man were then subjected to attack again by these same peaceful demonstrators, a crime in itself something we don’t hear of by these people.
Sadly he later died, but a Pathologist who performed a post mortem stated that he had suffered a heart attack, nothing more or less that ended his life.
What are the Police to do with a bunch of people intent on causing mayhem? Ask demonstrators for a health record before they allowed to start trouble.
People need to grow up and begin to understand that the whole sorry affair was nothing more than the unfortunate end to a life. The man more than likely would have died anyway, but the amount of anti Police, pro leftist comments is truly simplistic and full of hate like so many of the demonstrators who attacked the Police on the demo.
His death is a shame, but it was nothing more than natural, and would be except for the over reaction and over egging of the event by those on the left and those with anti Police issues.
I think your definition of “heart trouble” is based on a few too many soap-opera heart attack scenes and not a real knowledge of what heart palpitations are like (you’re not alone; there was a public information campaign about this last year). A racing heart does not lead one to fall to the ground clutching one’s chest in agony. It may make you feel light-headed and panicky and one’s first instinct is probably to try to reassert control over oneself by blocking out external, threatening stimuli (which will be contributing to the panic and raised heart-rate in the first place).
Heading for a safe place is probably the second instinct. Basically, if you think that you might genuinely lose consciousness, you want to be somewhere where you are A) going to be seen doing so and B) seen by people who are probably going to know what to do. Like police officers (they’re clearly the closest thing to ‘emergency services’ in the vicinity).
All of this tallies with the observed behaviour – trying to stay out in the open, staying near the police, avoiding the crowd, keeping his head down and so forth. If so, being shoved to the ground certainly won’t have helped him and probably made any attempt at calming himself down impossible. The further stress on an already stressed individual may have been too much, and the result was a fatal heart attack.
All of this assumes that he sustained no injury as a result of the push, and is merely based on the mental distress caused – I can’t speculate on the physical injury aspect as this is something that a post-mortem really should settle beyond all doubt. I strongly hope that the post-mortem carried out was sufficiently independent and thorough to dispel any fears of bias or cover-up, but I suspect that it may not, especially given the haste with which statements were made insisting that the death was entirely un-suspicious.
Tory. I have no problem with the word “interpretation”. What I object to is the suggestion that your particular interpretation of these events has any value whatsoever.
Apart form the many gaping flaws and holes in your interpretation which have already been remarked upon, there’s the new fact that it comes from someone unable even to discern the meaning of blog-comments written in plain English.
My “interpretation” was not at all the one you’ve ascribed to me. What I said was (emphasis added):
Maybe he was on his way home, had had a few drinks, and was walking slowly, so the cordon caught up with him without him noticing. That’s a totally impossible scenario is it?
To be clear, I’m not saying I know the answers. I’m saying you don’t.
It’s not been a good morning for you, has it? You came in strong with a whole bunch of factual claims, ranging from the unsupported (Tomlinson was a protester) to the downright false and insulting (he “was doing everything in [his] power to infuriate the police”), via some which conflicting with the current evidence (he was not “attempting to get home from work”).
And you’ve backed all of this up with, well, sod all apart from a lot of bluster, bald assertion, some nonsense about his “plain clothes”, a lot of irrelevant carping about the Left, and when all else fails the pathetic plea that you’re just giving one possible interpretation out of many.
The only interpretation I’m offering is that you’re way out of your depth, and obviously talking tripe.
Larry, oh dear. Since when did I claim facts? If you re-read my original blog post, you will see claims based solely on the video evidence and eyewitness testimony. This is no different from what any other blogger and indeed many journalists have done today and yesterday evening, making you look rather stupid, so feel free to tell all the Lefty bloggers that their interpretations of the events are worthless. Your “scenario” was one possible interpretation of events and I find it laughable that you’re trying to back out of what you said being precisely that. Your point about ‘getting home after work’ makes you look even more stupid, as anyone who read my post and comments properly would know that I was referring to his refusal to do what the police asked. But, sadly, that wouldn’t fit with your preconceived ideas about this event, would it. You really have contributed nothing to this comment thread, and it’s not often I need to highlight that about one of my commentors. Other people have been trying to debate what happened, you’ve just been wasting time.
Rob, sorry but I don’t agree with your assessment. How can you claim that he was trying to stay near the police when he was facing the wrong way with his hands in his pockets looking rather relaxed? He didn’t look very panicky to me.
Rich, unfortunately you have come up against the complete refusal to understand the context of the video that I’ve been dealing with all day. Lefties see a police officer push someone to the floor, and it’s all cries of murder, brutality and unprovoked violence – it really is that simple to the Left who are clearly incapable of understanding how riot police are forced to control mass protests.
Rob wrote:
The man died of a heart attack plain and simple with no injuries at all according to the Pathologist who undertook the post-mortem.
So that clears that up, unless the left wing and anti Police wish to begin a new conspiracy theory over the matter trying to prove that Pathologists employed by the NHS, bound by their oaths, on rota at the various public mortuaries throughout the land are happy to lie to cover up for the Police? It’s on par with the belief that Elvis is still alive working in a chip shop or that the FBI flew the planes into the Twin Towers to stir up anti Muslim rhetoric.
This death was a natural death, one of thousands each day. He was pushed over because he shown to be acting to hinder the Police. He then got up and walked away, dying some many minutes later.
The same detestable out of control Police as they are alleged by the more fanciful posters and bloggers were the ones who tried to save this man using CPR whilst they came under attack by the peace loving demonstrators who had no regard for the life of this man or the Police trying to save his life. I did not see one other person trying to help, unless a bottle of some description thrown by a jolly protestor was an attempt to bring some water to aid the Police and man, which I doubt. More likely bottles were thrown to maim the Police.
But you see that does not sit well with those who dislike the Police and want to attack them at every opportunity, be it on the streets or though the net.
It does not matter if they are riot police or not- the man had his back to them- even if he had been obstructing them in an illegal manner (which there is no evidence of other than him walking slowly)the attack was not predicated on him being physically intimidating the officers.
Just because riot police have the power to act aggressively does not mean they have to.
Can you not see that, even taking into account the wider context, the police’s actions were unjustified?!
I think the point here is that the “scenario” doesn’t matter. Restraints on state violence must be absolute, and that is for the good reason that the power of the state is, to all intents and purposes, infinite. The only protection the people have from it are rules.
This man was belted from behind by a policeman. That is a breaking of those rules. “He was asking for it” justifications don’t hold any water. That isn’t the principle on which the rules are based.
A state in which its organs have arbitrary power is a tyranny, even if it chooses to be a benign one. The British tradition is the rule of law. We discard that at our peril. This is one reason I have never been a conservative; when push comes to shove, conservatives, like socialists, tend to be rather too ready to start justifying the means, often even when there is no clear end being served.
Of course there must be constraints on what the police can and cannot do, who is arguing that there shouldn’t be? I’m not seeking to justify what the police did, I am simply pointing out that the Lefty version of events has totally ignored the possible set events that led up the video footage. Without this context, it is impossible to make any definitive judgement on how ‘justified’ and ‘proportionate’ the police’s actions were. People can cry murder and unprovoked violence as much as they want, but these are ridiculous claims in the absence of the context leading up to the police pushing Ian to the ground.
Rich, don’t tempt fate, the Lefties will apparently construct any version of events that fits their anti-police agenda.
Ian B wrote:
More assumptions here than you can shake a stick at. Why was he pushed? Why was this man clearly seen to be hindering Police as they rightly, and legally tried to clear the area of people some of whom had been rioting and attacking the Police not long before?
You see we can assume anything we wish by this video. I assume from the video that the Officers were in fear that the mob was regrouping to attack property, which would lead to more injuries on themselves and innocent people. They lawfully and rightly were clearing the area of the mob who have been causing trouble, which is a usual event on a Friday and Saturday night outside bars and gathering areas for yobs, but it appears many people want the Police to act against drunken thugs, but not demonstrators who profess to want the right to demonstrate peacefully when clearly many did not.
So it seems that many on these blogs want the law for drunken yobs to be enforced, yet not against ‘peaceful, non violent’ demos where Police are attacked and injured, with property destroyed. Ho hum.
LFAT wrote:
You shouldn’t shut up, Rich. Blogs like Liberal Conspiracy were heralding the silence of right-wing blogs and bloggers this morning, to the point where they were even claiming that our supposed silence would be a sign of victory.
Well, well, what a lot of sound and fury (signifying…well, quite a bit, actually) from the usual suspects.
As another commenter (I think at Iain Dales’ blog) pointed out, how refreshing to see the left wingers use the same righteous condemnation of the police that they bellowed to the heavens when the Countryside Alliance claimed rough treatment on their march.
Not!
“So it seems that many on these blogs want the law for drunken yobs to be enforced, yet not against ‘peaceful, non violent’ demos where Police are attacked and injured, with property destroyed. Ho hum.”
Well, Rich, the police are supposed to be able to tell, by magic, which are the demonstrators, and which are the yobs, according to the leftie dogma of the day. I find it hard, but then, I’m not a police officer, and have a simple credo:
Hold hands and chant, while nibbling a tofu sandwich? I just laugh.
Throw a bottle, brick or spit and swear in my face? Prepare to meet a fist.
LFAT “if the police matched the protestors in numbers during a protest then they could easily have arrested him.”
Well then, how did they manage to arrest 63 other people? There are procedures for arresting individuals during a mass demonstration, even a riot. Isn’t it called the “snatch squad” or something?
Anyway, it’s not applicable in this particular case. The officers were not surrounded by a baying mob, or in contact with the crowd, or getting stuff thrown at them, or doing anything except standing in a big blank space. Exactly how zen do the circumstances have to be for the police to be able to make an arrest, by your way of thinking?
By the way, and in evidence of good faith, if you go across to the first Lib Con thread on this yesterday, you’ll see me being called ideologically unsound and accused of trying to exculpate the police by some lefty because I dared to point out that there were discrepancies between the video and the witness statements.
This is by way of saying that I know what you’re talking about when you disparage the left’s tendency to lay a blanket of blame across the whole thing, but in my opinion you’re going way too far the opposite way, probably out of frustration. As for me, reason and logic get me nowhere with either side, it seems. Twas ever thus…
Out of interest, are you standing by this claim:
This was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to portray Ian as an innocent bystander when in reality he was very much part of the protest.
?
Cos every single account I’ve read today has him as a newspaper-seller trying to get home after work. (Not to suggest that your interpretation is any better or worse than those of Tomlinson’s family or coworkers, of course.)
There are a lot of anti-police postings here and I think that is one of the things I have noticed reading other postings on other blogs.
It seems to me that the left have definitely found a new martyr and have galvanised themselves to proclaim police brutality. Yet again they have conveniently forgotten abour brutality towards the police on these ‘peaceful protests’. I for one would rather the full evidence come out before hanging that police officer. You know…innocent until proven guilty. A thing the left hold dear.
It also seems that many of you have never faced violent situations and never really have any idea of policing. When you have been spat at, shouted at, told ‘hope your kids die a nasty death’ and beaten while trying to do your job, your patience wears a teensy weensy bit thin. Of course the left aren’t interested in this.
I recall the footage shown of PC Anthony Mulhall arresting the young black woman Toni Comer in Sheffield. When the footage came to light, the media lay into PC Anthony Mulhall claiming police brutality. The left organised themselves to demonise the police and PC Mulhall. Initially it was claimed that PC Mulhall was attacking a young woman who was having an epileptic fit. She wasnt. The left/media went on that you shouldnt hit a woman like that (how many have tried to arrest a drunken woman?). They went on that she was completely innocent and the race card was played (she actually had been to court and charged for causing £3000 worth of damage to a vehicle and have been thrown out of a club for her behaviour). Eventually it was determined that PC Mulhall was completely innocent and just doing his job, whereas Toni Cromer was proven to be a drunken liar. Still never mind. The media/left had their fun. Unfortunately a few months later, PC Mulhall was dead. Any apology from the media/left? None whatsoever.
My point is, is that the officer involved in the Ian Tomlinson incident is being hung drawn and quartered by the media/left already.
Alix, 63 arrests out of the total number of protestors sounds pretty damn tiny to me. When riot police are in place, the whole situation is very different from confronting regular police officers. I’m sure there are procedures in place, but I am willing to stick my neck out and say that riot police prioritise arresting vast numbers of people below maintaining order. That, I suspect, is why they didn’t help Ian get up again, that is why they were fully kitted out in riot gear and that is why they had police dogs. I am not seeking to absolve them of responsibility, but I am trying to point out that without taking the context of what happened into account, any analysis is pointless – and that is where the lefty blogs have spectacularly failed today. Man shoved over by police, blame police, end of story. I happily accept that the context I inferred from the video and eyewitnesses is wildly different from the simplistic account of many lefties.
Larry, you’re really boring me and probably boring a lot of other people. By ‘part of the protest’, I mean that he was right next to where it was all kicking off and getting in the way of police officers. He was not explaining his innocence to them, he was not asking them for safe passage, he was obstructing them (willingly so, from what I saw) and that makes him very much part of the protest – even if he had only been there a short while.
Maybe that is what you meant. But it isn’t what you said. What you said was that the suggestion that he was “attempting to get home from work” was an insult to your intelligence.
Unfortunately that suggestion has been thoroughly backed up, and your intelligence further insulted, by the emerging facts throughout the day.
Thespecialone, valid point. The frightening speed at which police officers (one in particular) were being branded murderers along with spouting rubbish such as ‘echoes of De Menezes’ was very disheartening. Even before the investigation has started, the Left have reached their own conclusion.
The video seems to be a snapshot in time and I would like to know what had gone on before the incident. Something doesn’t quite add up for me.
JuliaM wrote:
Agreed. I find it risible that those who wish, and welcome the Police to come down hard on the lawlessness of our towns during the weekend nights of near anarchy when drunken thugs take over they praise them for their efforts, but cannot see that a violent demo where the Police were attacked are now saying the Police are out of control? As long as the Police tackle drunken loud mouthed yobs at the weekend so as not to disturb the media bloggers sleep, then that’s alright, but God forbid them doing their job when it intrudes into their daily existence when they can take the moral high ground of priggish indignation?
The fact was that a man was pushed, something that you see one any Cop TV show, seems to pass over these people and there are no cries of ‘ Nazis in jackboots’ here, except from the drunken youth and girls who usually end up in A&E where they abuse and become violent to NHS staff.
All we do know on this short piece of video, is that a man was pushed to the ground. He got up; walked away and some minutes, 7 to 25 minutes later he died of a heart attack, which proves nothing except that he died of a heart attack. Anyone who knows, a heart attack can occur in a few seconds or over a few minutes, but generally unless it is a genetic event like SDS (sudden death syndrome) the man probably had a heart condition. If he did then we should ask all people who go on demos that may or may not turn violent to bring along a health card indicating that they do not suffer from a long list of ailments so the Police can leave them alone if they become violent, attack them, smash windows, or obstruct or hinder a lawful order to move.
The officer who came forward who said he was the one who pushed this man will no doubt, thanks to the left wingers and those double standard desk media jockeys, find him self in court on ‘whatever fits’ charges brought in by the politically controlled CPS to placate the bawling mobs that have already tried, convicted and sentenced him to years in prison.
Those newspapers who have prejudged this issue will have pre judged the case as have some of the better known political bloggers who appear on TV where their sanctimonious claptrap have made the Policing of our out of control country, made more lax for the anarchists, professional trouble makers and any Tom, Dick or Harry who organises a violent disorder, knowing the Police will sit on their hands in case they come under the gaze of the political and media hypocrites.
If we allow the tabloid, broadsheet and media blog prigs to take over justice then we are one more step on the moral decline and we become less safe.
“Before any investigation has been completed, you are already pointing the finger at the police.”
Perhaps the guardian and ITN should unvideo their videos, and all the witnesses that saw it happen three times should unspeak, and we should unmake the decision to overrule the biassed post-mortem.
This was as clear an example of battery and ABH as one could hope to see. It wasn’t really an assault in the strict sense though, as it’s debatable whether Tomlinson could even see what was about to happen to him (assault requires ‘the apprehension of subsequent battery and/or physical violence’).
How falling head first onto a concrete pavement could, in you eyes, fail to cause harm that was ‘more than trivial, less than serious’ as required for ABH is totally beyond me.
“You also seem to be under the impression that police officers are judged on the same basis as civilians when it comes to how they behave, which makes your post just bizarre to read.”
Why on earth should being a member of the police force be a license to carry out what are accurately described as illegal acts, or a mitigation of responsibility for them? That’s not how the law sees things, nor is it how vaguely moral human beings should.
The guardians of the law cannot be allowed to be seen as the breakers of the law.
“but generally unless it is a genetic event like SDS (sudden death syndrome) the man probably had a heart condition.”
The legal test is not whether he had something wrong with him. If it was, the law would become a hell-hole of injustice, whereby it was easier to act with violence towards the sick and disabled.
The test is that of causation.
Things cause heart attacks, Moorlandhunter. Such as stress and aggravation. Stress and aggravation which wasn’t Ian Tomlinson’s fault.
Unfortunately for your argument, such as it is, he wasn’t “in” the protest or inside the cordon at any time. But then, I suspect the issue here is that we’re dealing with a member of the 20% or so of the population who are unusually subservient to authority.
From yours and others comments, I suspect we are dealing with people who hate the police and whose politics have eaten their brains. I love how you nutters make up your own definitions.
The death has to be the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act [push]and would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. The act must be a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor.
If Mr. Tomlinson died as a result of myocardial infarction, his death was imminent and would have happened without anyone laying a hand on him.
“Miller 2.0 The test is that of causation. Things cause heart attacks, Moorlandhunter. Such as stress and aggravation. Stress and aggravation which wasn’t Ian Tomlinson’s fault. “
Things like occlusion of a coronary artery by plaque resulting in ischemia to the heart muscle and infarction — not stress and aggravation.
With your dumbass made up definition of causation, his bus could have left 30 seconds early, causing him to run to catch it and “stress and aggravation that wasn’t Ian Tomlinson’s fault,” and resulting in him dropping dead. You going to arrest the bus driver and charge him with murder?? Hahahaha.
Sam, try a thought experiment. Suppose one day, you’re in a bad mood with somebody, you attack them from behind, deliberately hitting them with a stick and then shoving them to the ground. Shortly afterwards they die from a heart attack. Now, how do you think the police and courts would deal with you?
Furthermore, how would the press deal with you? “More thuggery on our streets”? Would there not be a baying mob of conservatives demanding that an example made of you? Wouldn’t your defence that your push didn’t directly cause the heart attack be derided as “getting off on a technicality”? Hmmph, the law protects the villains, not the victims, right?!
There’s no two ways about this thing. The policeman attacked Tomlinson like a common thug. He should face the same law as any other citizen. Police are public servants, allowed to use reasonable force when necessary. They don’t have a licence to hit people.
Regarding Alex’s link about “authoritarian”, the lefties in academia are quietly redefining the word “authoritarian” to be a synonym of “right wing”, as anyone will realise if they read that bilge. It’s to distract from the fact that the Left are the most extreme authoritarians plaguing western society at the moment, as anyone suffering under “liberal” New Labour realises. Fundamentally, they’t trying to officially add “conservative” to their ever growing list of official personality disorders.
@ Ian B:
Ian, try an experiment: Think. I don’t live in Ianland where Ian makes up the laws. I stated the law and medical fact. Don’t like it? Tough. You can try to change the law but you won’t succeed. And you’re never going to change medical science.
A police officer pushed Mr. Tomlinson. He got up and walked off. So, far, all we know is that he may have died from a M.I. If so, the proximate cause of his death was not the push. That is not a technicality but medical and legal fact.
The law also protects the accused. The problem with you and others is that you don’t want to apply the same laws to everybody. You want to apply draconian laws that only exist in your mind to police officers because you have an irrational hatred of them. Grow up.
“Grow up”? May I make a suggestion to you, which would be that you keep a civil tongue? How’s that, Sam?
I want very much to apply the same laws to everyone. How do you think the police would have reacted if Mr Tomlinson had hit one of them with a stick then shoved him to the ground? Would they have said, oh, that’s okay, he got up and walked away? No, they wouldn’t, would they?
Neither would it be legal for me to hit you with a stick and shove you to the ground, however irritating you are being, would it?
It is you who are trying to apply different laws to people. You like the idea of a police force who can just randomly hit people you don’t approve of, and are twisting and turning to try to justify that. You want thuggery on our streets, fine. You want it to be only the preserve of the police to indulge in thuggery, well…
I hear Burma has nice weather. You’d like it there.
It is now being reported that Mr Tomlinson died 85 minutes (ie almost 1.5 hours) after he was shoved/pushed. Can the death still be connected to the shove/push?
Mr Tomlinson reportedly refused to move out of the way of a police van earlier, despite numerous attempts to make him. He have to be forcibly moved.
Mr Tomlinson was an alcoholic and drunk at the time. Could his alcoholism have anything to do with his death?
@ Ian B:
Ian: Grow up. There is nothing civil about your comments. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall that talks back. Don’t go off on tangents. Don’t argue nonexistent facts. Try to focus: The issue is whether the push was the proximate cause of the death of Mr. Tomilson. It wasn’t. Again, you and others don’t get to make up laws, make up facts, and make up medical science because you hate cops.
sam wrote:
Thank you for having the sense, unlike some, that the man’s death due to a heart attack was anything but natural and that to prejudge the issue is the wrong thing to do.
I’ve heard so many different times after the push, that he died, from immediately on the floor after the push, to 7 minutes and then 20 mines later, but now I’ve hear that it was an hour later!
The left and others are very happy to prejudge the issue and have already tried, convicted and want this Policeman and the Police force punished for doing………….nothing.
Personally I’ve no interest in whether it caused his heart attack. It entirely misses the point. What is beyond doubt is that the policeman assaulted him. It’s on video. That is the point.
Anyone who thinks that that is okay is saying they’re happy for the police to just randomly assault people they don’t like if they are in a bad mood. That is not acceptable in Britain. It’s not how our police are supposed to operate.
The heart attack is besides the point. Arguing that the policeman is innocent if he didn’t cause the heart attack is beside the point. The man committed an act of common thuggery, and needs to face the consequences of his thuggery, just as any other citizen would have to.
@ Ian B:Personally I’ve no interest in whether it caused his heart attack. It entirely misses the point.
Of course, you don’t. You and the other hysterics lost the argument. And it’s disingenuous of you to now claim it entirely misses the point when all I’ve heard is people yapping that this man was murdered by the police officer. So, get off it.
What is beyond doubt is that the policeman assaulted him. It’s on video. That is the point.
Beyond doubt? Guess again. At most, it’s a simple battery, not an assault. And that does not mean it was illegal, in that not all non-consensual touchings, which is the definition of battery, are illegal. I have yet to read a coherent and legally based argument that has established that unlawful force was applied. You have made no point.
Anyone who thinks that that is okay is saying they’re happy for the police to just randomly assault people they don’t like if they are in a bad mood. That is not acceptable in Britain. It’s not how our police are supposed to operate.
Anyone who thinks it is okay to make up their own facts and laws, like you and others have repeatedly done, because they hate police officers, are out of touch. This is not acceptable in Britain and it is not how the law and courts operate.
The heart attack is besides the point. Arguing that the policeman is innocent if he didn’t cause the heart attack is beside the point.
As previously stated, it is very much the point. People have been arguing, falsely, that the officer has committed murder because of it.
The man committed an act of common thuggery, and needs to face the consequences of his thuggery, just as any other citizen would have to.
There is no statutory or common law offense of “common thuggery.” Let me guess: you made it up.
I did not suggest that there is a specific legal definition of “thuggery” as I’m sure you can tell from up there on your high horse. “Thuggery” is a normal word in our language, and one very commonly used to describe acts of dumb, brutish violence in the vernacular, which is obviously how I used the term.
So, the question comes down to, was an illegal level of violence used? Well, I don’t know. I know that I would not expect that level of violence (hitting somebody from behind with a baton and shoving them forcibly to the ground) to be legal if I used it against somebody else. Most people watching the video immediately think that, whatever their bias (and as I said, I’m very much biased against these protestors and the Left in general; what a pity Dave “Green” Cameron isn’t, eh?).
So what it comes down to is that most normal people expect a police force that acts with restraint instead of lashing out like lager louts, as we saw on the video.
And no, I’m not asserting that there is a criminal offence called “lashing out like a lager lout” either, you berk.
@ Ian B:
I did not suggest that there is a specific legal definition of “thuggery” as I’m sure you can tell from up there on your high horse.
You get off your high horse. You are the one who makes up things, not me. And no one cares about what you consider is a normal word or not. It is not what is used when discussing charges. In fact, it is highly prejudicial and would not be allowed in a court of law. Another indication of your bias and inability to think straight.
So, the question comes down to, was an illegal level of violence used?
Uh, no. You try to figure out on your own where you screwed up.
And who cares about what most people think? Most people don’t know their butt from their head. I continually hear the most ridiculous and erroneous comments from “most people” so call me unimpressed by the opinions of “most people.”
So what it comes down to is that most normal people expect a police force that acts with restraint instead of lashing out like lager louts, as we saw on the video.
What it comes down to is that you don’t determine who is normal or not or what is normal police behavior. You’re simply not qualified and are too biased and have an overactive imagination.
I’ve always voted Tory (though thankfully I no longer live in the UK), but because I’m a small government, free market, rights of the individual sort of person (my first vote was for Maggie). I very much doubt I’d vote for Cameron’s Tories, he seems an avowed statist to me.
I was assaulted by a copper in 1978 at a football match and in response to my complaint I was threatened with various charges including assaulting a police officer and they had another police officer who would be prepared to be a witness (i.e. happily perjure himself in a court), but if I dropped the complaint they’d drop the charges. Since then my distrust of coppers (I’d previously been lied to by one) turned to intense dislike. My sister (a nurse) reported a suspected case of child abuse, that night she had a police inspector on her doorstep asking her to drop the compmlaint, appears the father was a senior copper. I could go on and on. One thing I have found out is that standing up for your rights or questioning the right of a police officer to do what they are doing is provocation in their eyes, you are expected to “respect their authority”.
I could very easily find myself in Ian Tomlinson’s situation because I do not concede that the government or the police have the right to tell me where I should or cannot walk on a public highway if I’m minding my own business and not breaking “proper” laws. Repealing the powers that Labour has given to the police and others in authority should be one of the major issues exercising the Tory party but I doubt if much will change when they take power.
[...] paraphrase, but in his Wednesday post, he arguments consist of the [...]
[...] characteristic responses on both left and right – contrast the anguish of Laurie Penny with the lofty moralising of Letters from a Tory, for example. The former assumes a connection between the fall and the heart attack which is not [...]
I’m really shocked by your post and your attempts to label Mr Tomlinson as part of the protest, and therefore somehow to blame himself for being assaulted by a Police Officer. He was an innocent and unconnected member of the public, who had been wrongly allowed by Police to enter the secure area on his way home from work, and who was then attacked with much force by a Policeman. It could have been anyone. Those other Police at the scene knew Mr Tomlinson was innocent and unconnected to the G20 riots, otherwise they wouldn’t have helped him up or let him leave!