Cowardly left-wing bloggers ignore new Ian Tomlinson evidence
Dear Liberal Conspiracy, Newer Labour, Pickled Politics, Lib Dem Voice, Bloggerheads, Quaequam and Harry’s Place,
Silence. So peaceful, so still. After your relentless heckling of right-wing bloggers, Conservative or otherwise, following the video footage of Ian Tomlinson, one can be forgiven for thinking that you were in some way interested in establishing the truth about what happened to him. Indeed, a huge number of Lefties came onto this blog to viciously attack my suggestion that Ian was far from innocent in all this. Yesterday afternoon, the Daily Mail published new eyewitness testimony, yet you seem to have gone awfully quiet. To find out why you’ve gone so quiet, we must read the following quote from the Daily Mail article that details an incident about 85 minutes before Ian tragically died:
“[Ian] can be seen deliberately blocking a police van before refusing to be moved on by an officer in riot gear. The photographs emerged just hours after a new video which seems to show that the father-of-nine had been hit three times by police. The footage, recovered from a broken TV news camera, clearly shows a police officer hitting the back of Mr Tomlinson’s legs with a metal baton. It appears to back up earlier film taken by a City fund manager and released on Tuesday night, which showed an officer striking the homeless alcoholic with a baton and then shoving him to the ground. However, the fresh pictures, which were taken by IT worker Ross Hardy, seem to complicate events surrounding the 47-year-old’s death. ‘I’d been watching some of the protests and saw this older guy standing in the road,’ he said. ‘Cops were there already but a police riot van was trying to make its way up the road towards the Bank of England. Tomlinson stood out because of his football shirt and seemed in his own little world. It was weird. The van approached and a cop leaned out to shout at him to get out of the way. But he didn’t go anywhere. He just mumbled something and raised his arm a bit unsteadily. It was then it became obvious he was drunk because he wasn’t really coherent and couldn’t move well. The officer yelled at him again and when he didn’t move the riot van moved slowly up against him. It just nudged him gently but Tomlinson still didn’t get out of the way. They tried nudging him again. When that didn’t work four riot police moved in and dragged him on to the pavement. The van moved past but Tomlinson stuck around for at least another half an hour.”
So, let’s take this new evidence and return to my original post on Tuesday morning (in italics):
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.
Well, well, well. My analysis isn’t looking so stupid now, is it. Your insistence that Ian was ‘on the way home’, in addition to the number of people who told me categorically in my comments section and elsewhere that all the evidence showed that Ian was merely an innocent man on his way home, was in fact not the whole story (to put it mildly). The eyewitness says that Ian “stuck around for at least another half an hour”, which seems like very odd behaviour for someone who was unquestionably, without any doubt, definitely trying to go straight home, don’t ya think?
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.
Well, well, well. Huge swathes the Lefties descended on my blog on Tuesday to express their outrage at my refusal to accept that their beloved Ian had done nothing wrong, that he was merely the victim of circumstance, that he was going home from the newsagent and was subsequently set upon by those evil police officers without any provokation. Ian was in fact quite happy to antagonise the police, as I suggested. Whether he met the same officers later on is impossible to tell, but it does make all the verbal attacks on me in my comments section and elsewhere look a little embarrassing for you, doesn’t it. Bless. Also notice from the photos that he made a pretty damn quick exit when the riot police came near him on this earlier occasion, making his behaviour when he met them a second time look distinctly less innocent.
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.
Ian’s drunkeness raises a number of difficult questions about how the police should have dealt with him, bearing in mind that he was antagonising officers and quite pissed. He was clearly able to walk away from being shoved to the floor later on and skip away from riot police when he met them the first time, so he cannot have been paralytically drunk. Alcohol always raises the issue of how in control of his actions he was at the time, especially given his alcoholic background. That said, being drunk during a mass protest is not exactly a wise course of action.
Allow me to try and summarise the situation that we have reached. These new photos and this one new eyewitness give us nothing more than another small piece of a very large and tragic puzzle. As I said on Tuesday, which was conveniently ignored by all the people who verbally abused me, “I’m not going to sit here and defend everything that the police did at the G20 …[and] 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.” However, you were all up in arms at the police and right-wing bloggers just a matter of hours ago and it was even claimed that “the stench of hypocrisy is over-whelming” in the failure of right-wing bloggers to comment on the new video footage. Now, curiously, you have gone completely silent when new evidence arrives that doesn’t fit with your tribal anti-police agenda. Not a single one of you has even given a passing mention to this new evidence and that, I’m afraid, makes you look rather cowardly.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
UPDATE: So it’s been over 24 hours since the Daily Mail article – let’s see what’s happened. Liberal Conspiracy, Chick Yog and Lib Dem Voice have all posted on the G20 protests again today but they’ve completely ignored this new evidence about Ian. Quaequam has also posted, but decided to chat about my original post on Tuesday and – yes, you guessed it – completely ignored this new evidence, while Bloggerheads found time to come on this blog but refused to discuss Ian on his blog on the basis that he ‘rejected’ the new evidence. Newer Labour? Nothing. Harry’s Place? Nothing. Pickled Politics? Nothing. Even the bloggers that Lib Con linked to in order to show their strength in numbers on Tuesday have gone mysteriously quiet. Will Rhodes? Nothing. Paul Sagar? Nothing. Lee Griffin? Nothing. Labour Left Forum? Nothing. Penny Red? Nothing. The latter two, incidentally, openly accused the police of murder on Tuesday evening. Congratulations must go to Hagley Road for being the only Lefty blogger to cover…. oh, no, my mistake - they mentioned the Daily Mail article, only to completely ignore the eyewitness testimony and instead complain that the paper called Tomlinson a homeless alcoholic.
And, just to clarify exactly what happened to Ian Tomlinson, Oranjepan said on Lib Dem Voice this morning: “The man is dead and it was completely avoidable for goodness sake. …The direct cause of Ian Tomlinson’s death is utterly clear”. Everyone got that? Good. No need for an investigation or indeed a second post-mortem. *roll eyes*
Witanagemot Blogs
“owever, you were all up in arms at the police and right-wing bloggers just a matter of hours ago and it was even claimed that “the stench of hypocrisy is over-whelming” in the failure of right-wing bloggers to comment on the new video footage. Now, curiously, you have gone completely silent when new evidence arrives that doesn’t fit with your tribal anti-police agenda.”
Give ‘em time. I predict we’ll see lots of ‘Yes, but…’ posts, or they will do nothing and say nothing.
Just as they did the last time, when video footage of a policeman appearing to ‘assualt’ a female outside a nightclub proved to be quite different.
Like the new spam protection! Very clever, not seen that before…
As they say the truth will always out but that old saying means nothing to the Left.
The left went strangely quiet after it was realised that PC Anthony Mulhall (killed by the media/left) did everything by the book when he was restraining the lying violent drunken thug Toni Cromer.
They will start posting when they get out of bed. More outrageous half-truths and ignoring other evidence.
So how exactly does Ian Tomlinsons behavior earlier,(which was what? exercising his right to protest by refusing to move out of the way of a police Thug mobile) “excuse” the polices subsequent attack on him?
I see the blogospheres answer to Janet Daly is up early this morning.LOL
Morning JuliaM.
Thespecialone, you say that, but don’t forget that the original Guardian story broke at 5:53pm on Tuesday and by 8pm that same evening the lefties were all over the story, claiming victory due to the silence of the right-wing blogosphere and highlighting our apparent hypocrisy at not covering it.
Julia, glad you like the new spam thing, glad to have you back during the day! I’m not so sure we’ll see anything on the lefty blogs, to be honest, but we shall see. I’ll be updating the situation throughout the day.
No doubt Sam is going to stumble drunkenly in our way shortly, under the confused impression he’s in a court of law rather than just arguing on the internet, then start arguing with himself about the meanings of various words in the english language. Meanwhile, what issue unavoidably remains is that the policeman hit Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground for no reason; he was not attacking the policeman nor threatening him in any way. That is what people like myself are upset about. If a policeman uses reasonable force against an aggressor, fair enough. But Tomlinson clearly wasn’t being an aggressor.
If he was apparently in a dazed state (drunk?) that makes matters worse, if anything. Is it now okay to beat up drunk people?
You make a lot of play about him “antagonising” the police. That is what protestors do. The whole point of protestors is antagonising people. It’s the whole basis of passive resistance. If somebody lies in front of a bulldozer or police car, it is precisely because they know it stymies the bulldozer or car driver, because they can’t legally just drive over them.
It’s about whether we want our police to be professional and restrained, or a gang of thugs who beat people they don’t like. If you want the latter, fine, but stop trying to defend that as anything else, and remember; once you take the gloves off the police, they never go back on.
The police had dogs, weapons and armour. They were not being attacked by a mob, or by Tomlinson in particular. He was just in their way. People get in the way at protests. If that now entitles the police to lash out like the common yobboes about whom the average Daily Mail reader declares, “no mercy!” and “this proves our country has gone to the dogs!” then, whatever a court of law might or might not be able to prove, this is no longer England.
Oh LFAT. You’re letting mere facts get in the way of a good rant. We can’t have that.
I’m happy to stick with my view on Tuesday; that it is terrible that he died, but I am not (yet) willing to blame the officers involved. Before blaming them, I would want to see a proper investigation…
And the award for the first ‘Yes, but…’ comment of the day goes to Ian B!!! Congratulations sir for completely avoiding any discussion of the new evidence.
Patently, fair play. At least you’re sticking to your guns, unlike the Left who are going to desperately try to squirm their way out of this one (assuming that they even dare go anywhere near this evidence, that is – I’m suspecting that most of them will chicken out completely as it leaves this angelic image of Ian in tatters).
Mr Tory
Can you make your spam protection remember what I’ve posted before telling me to go back to a blank text box!!
“I see the blogospheres answer to Janet Daly is up early this morning.LOL”
I’m up early every morning, even Bank Holidays. So many idiots on the interwebs, so little time…
“The police had dogs, weapons and armour.”
Yeah, and that’s not playing fair! The protestors only had bottles, and sticks, and stones, and whatever they could steal, and weight of numbers, and unbearable body odour….
“If that now entitles the police to lash out like the common yobboes about whom the average Daily Mail reader declares, “no mercy!”…”
There’s a crucial difference between ‘the police’ (upholding the law) and the ‘common yobboes’ (breaking the law). I wonder if you can figure out what it might be? I’ve given you a clue, because it’s early…
@LFAT
Ian B is pretty spot on though, the new evidence displays that Tomlinson certainly wasn’t the oh-so-innocent worker on his way home that many on the left have portrayed him.
Yet that still doesn’t justify knocking someone down for being an ass, which is the core of this.
Both the left and right are trying to make this into something else, with the left trying to portray Tomlinson as some angelic accidental-bystander, and the right as some hardcore agitator who was asking for it.
I don’t get it LFAT. What you’re trying to achieve here, other than to somehow justify the beating of a defenceless man by a policeman? In what circumstances is it okay for the police to beat somebody from behind with a baton and then push them to the ground? If they’re drunk and confused? If they’re wearing a Millwall shirt? If they didn’t immediately run out of the way when shouted at by a policeman? If they’re smoking a cigarette? What are your acceptable pre-conditions for beating members of the public?
The substance of your argument is entirely valid and the story of the Tomlinson incident obviously does has more to it than meets the eye.
However, it is the tone of your argument that I disagree with. Being condescending, patronising and talking down to these ‘lefties’, and being so righteous on your smug high horse doesn’t help anyone. The dirt that is flying around in politics at the moment and will undoubtedly intensify as Guido and others have pointed out as the election looms nearer is detrimental to the good that some are trying to do in politics and I believe is due to a large proportion of the apathy of the electorate.
You are right, and those bloggers that did attack you were wrong to do so without all of the evidence. However in lowering yourself to their level you are contributing to the disengagement of the masses and detracting from the validity of your argument.
I’m with Ian B on this one.
[...] truth is, none of us actually knows what happened that day, and evidence is still emerging that’s continually changing our idea of what happened. There’s nothing to be gained from blogging views about it. It’s not going to offer [...]
Dear LFAT,
A long article, at times bordering on self-parody, but nothing you’ve written is at all relevant to a later, unrelated, unprovoked and vicious assault by a police officer on a man who clearly posed no threat to anyone.
Stephen
[...] the Daily Mail revelations that Tomlinson may have been drunk, a triumphant LFAT has offered us the coup de grace. Apparently we are to believe that these photos are as revelatory as the Guardian [...]
“There’s a crucial difference between ‘the police’ (upholding the law) and the ‘common yobboes’ (breaking the law).”
The question under discussion is at what point the police cross the line from being in one category to being in the other, Julia.
No no no, Stephen, you’re not getting away with that. This post is not about how much blame the police deserve. This post is all about the gross misrepresentation by the Left of Ian and his actions. The amount of time spent by lefty bloggers criticising the police in the total absence of any analysis of what Ian did leading up the few seconds of video footage is what I am complaining about here and you know it. Stop trying to divert everyone’s eyes back onto the police. I have never and will never condone an officer pushing a completely innocent man to the ground, but you are clearly refusing to even begin to accept that maybe, just maybe, Ian isn’t as pure and great as you tried to portray him.
StuartAre, I am “talking down” to people who spent an entire day of their lives talking down to the entire right-wing blogosphere and indeed several media pundits on the basis of what they presented as facts. It is the misrepresentation of Ian that concerns me the most and the way that they attempted to play on his supposed innocence that I find so appalling.
Adam, thank you for also avoiding issue. You are in good company, it seems. Address my points instead of going on about the police.
Obsidian, I think you are partially right, but it was the Left attacking everyone on the Right that began all this. I’m loathed to say that two wrongs make a right because they don’t. However, all bloggers should be pulling in the same direction – towards the truth. It is clear to me now that many on the Left are simply not interested in this goal and I think that’s very sad.
So, he’s in ‘plain clothes’. As opposed to that natty uniform that newspaper vendors wear?
We believe the Daily Mail report that Ian Tomlinson was drunk and a bit oblivious to his suroundings. Yet we also think that him behaving in the same manner later on was calculated provocation of the police behind him.
As the pictures appear to show he was successfully moved on by police in the earlier incident, why does it justify the violence against him later on? Personally, if I wanted someone to leave an area I wouldn’t force them to the floor. People tend to move slower when they’re sat down.
But, you know, if we can see it as an antagonised officer then that’s OK. It’s not about clearing the area, it’s about venting your rage.
And he left quickly when escorted away and slower after he’d been knocked to the ground, you say? Wow, you or I wouldn’t do that, it could only be more of his antagonsing.
LFAT, it is likely you hear silence because you are not listening:
“For the record; I’d like the freedom to walk down the road and mind my own business or attend a protest without being attacked in this way.”
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/04/circumstances_i.asp
“Meanwhile, right-wing bloggers are still busy making out that Tomlinson was asking for this in some way (for being drunk, uncooperative, “very much part of the protest” etc.), and – in the same fucking breath – chiding ‘lefties’ for daring to draw any parallels to Jean Charles de Menezes. (Let’s leave aside for the moment those who scoff from their ivory towers and hold fast to the quite ridiculous notion that participation in pretty much any protest not involving the Countryside Alliance warrants a head-kicking.)”
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/04/why_arent_these.asp
“The Sun would like you to know that Ian Tomlinson was drunk and possibly asking for it http://tinyurl.com/dxkz6x ”
http://twitter.com/bloggerheads/status/1483532364
I saw the Mail’s pictures/account and I twittered the Sun’s repeat of that evidence and I had made it clear before then that I consider Ian Tomlinson’s stats as a bystander or protestor to be irrelevant.
I’m not refusing to blog about it, and I am not hiding it. I am instead publicly rejecting your entire argument as wrong-headed and even likely to be malicious in nature.
There was no call for what the IPCC clearly recognises as assault. This applies regardless of Mr Tomlinson’s politics, social status or sobriety.
You said: “Not a single one of you has even given a passing mention to this new evidence and that, I’m afraid, makes you look rather cowardly.”
You were clearly wrong when you said this and tagged me specifically as a coward when a cursory scan of the front page of my website would have made it clear that you were wrong.
Just how often do you declare things to be X, Y or Z when you haven’t even done your ABCs?
(Psst! If you want to talk to a coward, go talk to Iain Dale who appeared to make a ‘clever’ joke about Ian Tomlinson the night the key footage emerged, but now refuses to explain why he he would play it down as a non-story with the words; “Not a lot in tomorrow’s papers. Oh well, I suppose it’ll be Jacqui Smith’s turn for a battering again…”)
To close, I offer you this opinion piece, also from the Mail, that I ‘cowardly’ twittered while acknowledging that, yes, I was in agreement with an opinion piece in the Mail:
http://tinyurl.com/d2m8vd
@ LFAT:
Thank you for your reply,and yes I agree, that is the most important issue here. I get down about the amount of mud slinging that can go on. I need to make it clear that although I attacked you for being smug, you do need to counter those that have atacked you. However, I do wish that someone would take a stand and rise above the business of throwing insults at each other. They may have spent a day attacking you, as I see it, so what, they can waste their time doing that. There was a chance in this article to present the evidence in a less partisan way. There is a danger that the issue can be become blurred when political lines are so heavily involved. But I think you have done an important job in putting out there the other side of the story.
Why are the Lefties railing on you about the abuse of powers by the police.
Your own government, the people’s government, gave the police those very restrictive powers.
Some still seems to think Thatcher is in power and this was an anti poll tax march.
Just vote Tory at the next election you silly lefties.
You’ll feel so much less confused.I promise you will.
Then, when Cameron and Osbourne are on the steps of Downing street you can shout your slogans, complain about evil war profiteers, blame the police for everything, and whoever the two homes secretary is, demand their resignation for killing bystanders..
You’ll be happy. You can call for investigations into government sleaze, deaths in hospitals, the total lack of provision for people made newly homeless, or the dreadful state of care for the elderly.
You will be able to shout about the appalling state of education, the pointless non jobs, council tax {good old poll tax by another name} rich bankers being made knights of the realm while their workers are kicked onto the streets with a Statutory redundancy package that is 15 years out of date.
You could complain about corrupt Peers,evil wars against innocent civilians, usurpation of terrorism powers for non terrorist purposes.infringements of civil liberties. The dreadful state of public transport, a nuclear power generation scheme, new coal fired electrical generators, a third runway at Heathrow. The depressing state of knife crime, overcrowding in a completely inadequate, underfunded prison system.
Eleven year old feral children and Karen Matthews type sink estates.
Just vote Tory. It will be so much easier on your poor confused, furrowed cave man like thinking brows.
” Brown = good. Brown like Obama. So America good. But Moslem no like America. Me like Moslem. So me no like Brown? Me confused.”
So just vote for the Tories.
Then, when they are in, you can carry on your blinkered acceptance of reality and get all your old bogeymen back. The same ones you have now only without the inconvenience of having to give them your undivided support.
OK, rant over. Off for hols. Happy Easter all.
Good sense from the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1168850/MARTIN-SAMUEL-The-drip-drip-denigration-Ian-Tomlinson-ordinary-man.html
You may also care to see the police blocking the ambulance summoned by protestors trying to save Ian Tomlinson’s life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f0S6PPLI8Q
See ya Bill, have a good time. Look forward to Brownadder.
StuartAre, a lot of mud has been slung around, that is true. It’s just a shame that Lefties insist on angrily throwing so much mud but get furious when you throw some back.
Of course I read your blog Tim, and I found no discussion of this evidence whatsoever. All I saw was you going on and on about the Met police, which may well be justified, and you have linked to your own post which claimed that right-wing bloggers such as myself were just waiting for evidence that Ian was not entirely innocent in all this. The wait, it seems, is over – still no comment from you, though.
Again, you’re not listening. I linked to the evidence, when you claimed I had not.
You said: “Not a single one of you has even given a passing mention to this new evidence”
I linked to it and gave it a ‘passing mention’, but you have yet to admit that you were wrong about that.
Instead, you now say: “I found no *discussion* of this evidence whatsoever”
I had earlier discussed and rejected the entire subject of Mr Tomlinson’s politics, social status or sobriety as irrelevant, when you have claimed I am avoiding the issue by not mentioning it at all, but I doubt you’ll admit to being wrong about that also.
You then said: “…you have linked to your own post which claimed that right-wing bloggers such as myself were just waiting for evidence that Ian was not entirely innocent in all this. The wait, it seems, is over – still no comment from you, though.”
The wait is over? So you weren’t willing to a make a judgement based on several videos that have emerged, but these three extra photos from 6pm settle the matter for you, and any suggestion that you were “waiting for evidence that Ian was not entirely innocent in all this” is unfair? I just want to make sure I understand your position on that, because you appear to be confused.
You still fail to understand that I discussed the evidence and openly rejected your argument before that evidence emerged, as that evidence emerged, and here and elsewhere after the evidence emerged.
Still no comment from me, you claim? When the before, during and after is right in front of you? FFS.
But, just to ease your mind:
Was Tomlinson part of the protest, even so far as wandering in and deciding to join? I doubt it, but it’s irrelevant.
His sobriety is relevant only so far as a possible explanation for why he took so long in his attempts to skirt the area, failed to follow orders, etc. but it does nothing to explain or excuse the assault caught on camera, and only serves to undermine your theory about his status as a willing protestor (which I regard to be irrelevant, if I’ve not mentioned that before now).
But if we’re going to play this game, I must insist on your view of Iain Dale’s ‘clever’ Ian Tomlinson joke and the reason why you think he chooses not to explain or defend it.
*shaking head*
One of these days, a Lefty is going to appear on this blog and discuss my post rather than try to deflect attention away from it. Nothing is settled, Tim, I never said it was. You have not discussed the evidence presented yesterday at all. You and indeed several others are apparently incapable of understanding that there is a context surrounding the video footage. Indeed, yesterday’s story demonstrates that there is as much as 90 minutes of Ian’s actions and the police actions that ultimately led to the video. Quite astonishingly, you think that a few seconds of isolated video explains everything and is therefore the only thing worth talking about. My point is, and always has been, that this is a ridiculous line to take. You and many other Lefties have grabbed any evidence that you can to support your own view about what happened and why it happened, while ignoring the rest. That is, quite simply, cowardly. And I spoke to Iain yesterday about your pathetic ruse concerning his tweets and blog posts, suffice to say that this – like pretty much everything else on your blog – looks like just another attempt to avoid talking about Ian Tomlinson.
Wills, you obviously don’t understand the concept of controlling a mass protest. I dealt with the issue of riot police in the comment thread for my post on Tuesday.
Bill Quango MP.- Priceless. Have a well -earned Easter break.
He is a bit of a legend, isn’t he.
Anyway, comment moderation is now on while I’m out this afternoon, back later.
“Nothing is settled, Tim, I never said it was”
“Looks like the wait is *over*” you said about the wait for evidence, the moment some turned up that was potentially useful to you. But if you read my comment I was asking you for clarification on that point, so don’t go making out that I have done anything to you that is in any way akin to the false accusations you have made about me.
“Indeed, yesterday’s story demonstrates that there is as much as 90 minutes of Ian’s actions and the police actions that ultimately led to the video.”
He could have been throwing plastic bottles at police and calling their mothers and sisters whores for 90 straight minutes, and even this would be relevant only as a possible (if pathetic) mitigating circumstance to be aired in court. The footage we have seen has Tomlinson walking away from the police with his hands in his pockets, and nothing that preceded that action can possibly justify the way he was attacked in any legal sense. The best you have if all of your theories pan out is a possible moral defence.
The IPCC already classifies the event as assault, and they have publicly described it as such.
I again reject Tomlinson’s status as protestor or otherwise as irrelevant.
“That is, quite simply, cowardly. And I spoke to Iain yesterday about your pathetic ruse concerning his tweets and blog posts, suffice to say that this – like pretty much everything else on your blog – looks like just another attempt to avoid talking about Ian Tomlinson.”
So it’s not enough for you to call me a coward, you accuse me of deceit now?
And I note you’re not prepared to discuss it, either.
Iain is not prepared to discuss it, because he is ‘ignoring’ me (while publishing false claims about me on his website). This follows Iain’s general refusal to engage following his specific refusal to engage on an earlier (and unrelated) issue. You know; the kind of thing you’re falsely accusing me of, only far more childish and taken to a greater extreme.
I emailed Iain before I published, and I even called him to be sure. He chose silence.
I suspected it was meant as a joke, as I was reading the same newspaper updates he was reading at the time, and the Tomlinson story was a fresh and widely-shared/reported story from 8pm through to 11pm when Iain twittered. Iain regarded it to be a non-story (until later when he saw “a few seconds of isolated video”) and said at the time; “Not a lot in tomorrow’s papers. Oh well, I suppose it’ll be Jacqui Smith’s turn for a battering again…”
I took this to be a poor attempt at humour, and put that to him.
Iain had every opportunity to correct me on that point, or blog about it while claiming to ignore me (he’s already done this countless times) but he didn’t take that opportunity.
If he didn’t mean it as a joke, then let him explain himself. Even if he does so while claiming/pretending to ignore me, as he has done many times in the past.
“I have never and will never condone an officer pushing a completely innocent man to the ground, but you are clearly refusing to even begin to accept that maybe, just maybe, Ian isn’t as pure and great as you tried to portray him.”
Ah, only those pure as the driven snow are to be protected from police brutality, for those of us who are not, being assaulted by the police is our just desserts.
I refer you to my comments of earlier this week, which you seemed strangely unable to comprehend at the time, and apparently still don’t:
“makes no odds to me whether he was or was not [an innocent bystander], since police reaction to him was so clearly disproportionate.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Everything I said still stands in the light of the new footage.
You STILL have not grasped the exceptionally simple premise that violence should only be used to contain existing violence. Nudging or carrying someone out of the way, as the earlier police officers did according to the new eyewitness, is perfectly acceptable and proportionate to how obstructive he was being. It is STILL NOT acceptable to whack someone across the back of the legs and knock them over.
@ Ian B:
No doubt Sam is going to stumble drunkenly in our way shortly, under the confused impression he’s in a court of law rather than just arguing on the internet, then start arguing with himself about the meanings of various words in the english language.
Poor Ian! Still can’t sit after the ass kicking your received in the other thread, eh? If you, and others, are going to throw around words like murder, manslaughter, causation, assault and battery, I am going to insist that the correct definitions are used and not the ones only in your head. Get use to it.
You make a lot of play about him “antagonising” the police. That is what protestors do. The whole point of protestors is antagonising people. It’s the whole basis of passive resistance. If somebody lies in front of a bulldozer or police car, it is precisely because they know it stymies the bulldozer or car driver, because they can’t legally just drive over them.
If you lie down in front of a police car, are ordered to move and refuse, don’t be surprised if you are whacked with a baton, and if that fails, dragged off. That’s what the police do. If you lie down in front of a bulldozer, don’t be surprised if the driver can’t see you and a 500 lb piece of cement crushes your spine. The choice is yours and being drunk or hating Jews is not a defense.
[...] This is a neat theory, certainly backed up by some of the more 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 currently supported by hard evidence, and the latter uncritically accepts the Daily Mail’s position that being shamblingly drunk makes one more deserving of attack from behind by a policeman with a big sti…. [...]
Why was Tomlinson living in a bail hostel? Did he have prior arrests and convictions?
What ‘clever’ Ian Tomlinson joke is Manic wibbling on about? Anyone have any ideas?
He was a nuisance, but that does not make a lawful case for assaulting him.
Thank you LFAT for putting this on your blog as it that shows all those who were so quick to prejudge the situation of the death of this man as murder, or close to it will have to eat a bit of humble pie over the issue. To the rabid left wing that used the man’s death to justify their violence, I only have derision for their actions.
If Tomlinson was a alcoholic, which is being stated he was, that he was drunk at the time and a smoker, which clearly he was, he has a fag on in one of the picture, and becasue of his age, he is in the very high risk group of those likely to suffer a heart attack.
Update (posted on home page): So it’s been over 24 hours since the Daily Mail article – let’s see what’s happened. Liberal Conspiracy, Chick Yog and Lib Dem Voice have all posted on the G20 protests again today but they’ve completely ignored this new evidence about Ian. Quaequam has also posted, but decided to chat about my original post on Tuesday and – yes, you guessed it – completely ignored this new evidence, while Bloggerheads found time to come on this blog but refused to discuss Ian on his blog on the basis that he ‘rejected’ the new evidence. Newer Labour? Nothing. Harry’s Place? Nothing. Pickled Politics? Nothing. Even the bloggers that Lib Con linked to in order to show their strength in numbers on Tuesday have gone mysteriously quiet. Will Rhodes? Nothing. Paul Sagar? Nothing. Lee Griffin? Nothing. Labour Left Forum? Nothing. Penny Red? Nothing. The latter two, incidentally, openly accused the police of murder on Tuesday evening. Congratulations must go to Hagley Road for being the only Lefty blogger to cover…. oh, no, my mistake – they mentioned the Daily Mail article, only to completely ignore the eyewitness testimony and instead complain that the paper called Tomlinson a homeless alcoholic.
And, just to clarify exactly what happened to Ian Tomlinson, Oranjepan said on Lib Dem Voice this morning: “The man is dead and it was completely avoidable for goodness sake. …The direct cause of Ian Tomlinson’s death is utterly clear”. Everyone got that? Good. No need for an investigation or indeed a second post-mortem. *roll eyes*
Just as an FYI to you…the Times published his route home. I live not far from where he does and make regular trips into the City. The walking route he took shows he headed straight to the demos and riots. Noone wanting to avoid trouble would have headed back the way he did.
I’m sorry but being drunk doesn’t give the Police the right to assault you. “The law is the law” and it is a principle of our legal system that it applies to all – including the Police – therefore assault is assault. The Officer concerned has commited a crime and should face the consequences. http://newsjunction.co.uk
Moorlandhunter wrote:
His brother died a year ago of a massive coronary and he was reported to be about the same age. So, another risk factor may have been genetics. Bottomline, is that he died as a result of an MI-not a push.
“Bloggerheads found time to come on this blog but refused to discuss Ian on his blog on the basis that he ‘rejected’ the new evidence.”
That’s a lie. Rather than refuse to discuss the evidence, I pointed out that – contrary to your claim – I had already featured it, discussed it, dismissed it and explained on what basis I dismissed it. I even came here and explained that to you.
There is also a comment of mine from earlier this afternoon that you have yet to publish.
Dan wrote:
How do you know? If he was interfering with the police performing their duties, why is it unlawful to give him a push? And he was not hurt, so let’s not go all hysterical and say he was hurt. He wasn’t.
Nobody want to explain why he was in a “bail hostel” and why that may be important?
Sam, I’m pleased to have had another insight into that little fantasy world you live in in which you “kicked my ass”. It must be very lonely in there.
My consistent point has been that the policeman assaulted Mr Tomlinson, and he quite clearly did. Your judgment as to whether he would be convicted of the crime of assault is something we cannot decide without an actual trial. Your attempts to direct the argument towards your own interpretation of the law are interesting, in a “watching a loony arrange matchboxes according to their own inner compulsions” kind of a way, but aren’t germaine to the issue, which is a general public interest issue regarding what ordinary citizens, which we the commentariat on blogs (even your august self) are, consider acceptable police behaviour.
Please feel free to sit there in your home-made judge’s wig presiding over the little courtroom of dolls and teddies arranged around you, insisting on what language everyone else may use, while the rest of us get on with discussing the public interest issue at stake here, which is whether we want the police to go around twatting people whenever they feel like it.
He does seem to be in a high risk category according to all the advertising/spin that the government is spending our money on. The latest from the anti-police Daily Mail is that his brother died at the same age of a heart attack. I am not a medical person and therefore do not wish to comment on that further. Listen, I and any other right-minding person will be very sad that Mr Tomlinson died, and I am sure the police officer is mortified. In fact, earlier the DM reported that he had collapsed at home when he realised he was the officer involved.
I think that one thing about the left I detest is that they are very quick to demonise police, even when clearly they have done no wrong. But when a demonstrator DELIBRATELY seriously injures an officer, they are strangely quiet.
The officer is in a lose lose situation. If the officer is found guilty then it is obvious the poor man will lose his job and maybe go to prison. If he is eventually cleared of having anything to do with Mr Tomlinson’s death, it will be a ‘cover-up’ or a ‘whitewash’ and forever live with it.
Just so that the media/left know, hitting someone on the fleshy part of the arm, thigh and calf is standard procedure. In 99.9999999999999999% of cases, the ‘offender’ will suffer nothing more than a bruise and maybe an arrest. What also gets to me is that day in/day out officers receive injuries (sometimes very serious and even death), and it is only when an officer dies it may get a day’s headline. I used to buy the Daily Mail but now just read it online because of their anti-police reporting.
LFAT. Are you overdoing the charge of Left-Wing moral turpitude. Just because a person is left-wing does not necessarily mean they are without courage. Look at our PM. He has not only (ghost) written books on the subject, but has on several occasions throughout the last 12 years displayed that personal courage that we associate with the committed socialist.
Doubtless he took as his inspiration the performances of such as Trotsky and Khrushchev who actually showed great personal courage, respectively in the revolutionary wars and at Stalingrad, Gordon’s actions modified only by the constraints and necessities of modern times.
There again, we can be directed by the performances of Labour MP’s in the TA Reserve, and the willingness of their families to follow the example of the young Royals in serving in Labours’ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The value socialists put on courage is exemplified by the efforts made by the Cabinet to honour the return of the dead, and the unstinting efforts to provide the necessary treatment for those poor soldiers physically mentally and emotionally injured in Labour’s war to recover fully from their experience.
While Mr. Tomlinson’s treatment at the hands of the Police may or may not have contributed materially to his death, there are doubts about the preparedness of London’s Police Forces, sorry, Services, for the control of hostile demonstrations. I am, allegedly, one of those who had, allegedly, personal alleged experience of dealing with the alleged riots in Ulster during the 70’s.(allegedly).
To be facing hostile demonstrators, most of whom are filled with mob courage, (like Dutch courage, but cheaper), some of whom are seeking an excuse to seriously injure or kill you, coupled with the ever-present threat of firearms or explosives being used by extremists, is a frightening thing. One feels hunted and lonely, and is certain that only you are the target of the mob.
The way to deal with these fears is intensive and constant group training which includes all officers who will be in command situations, high morale, trust in ones’ fellow constables, confidence in the command structure, and simple, well-rehearsed plans. It appeared to me, from the comfort of my armchair, that most, if not all these items were lacking in the G 20 demonstrations. If the man on the ground is not given the right equipment and training, then Mr Tomlisons will become a feature of political protest in UK. What we don’t need, by the way is half-trained bully-boys like the CRS or National Guard.
What actual content is there in these? Unless his arse extends several feet behind him, photo 1 doesn’t show him “blocking” a police riot van at all. Photo 2 appears to show a further police assault – this doesn’t back your case. And Photo 3 doesn’t provide any information at all.
Why was Tomlinson living in a bail hostel?
He wasn’t; he was living in a hostel. The bail bit was introduced by the Metropolitan Police press office.
After another day of what can reasonably be described as a ‘vocal’ discussion, I’m closing this comments thread and the one from Wednesday as I’m busy over the next few days so won’t be able to keep up with old threads as well as new ones. Thanks to everyone who has given their two cents worth and I’m sure we will all keenly await the results of various investigations into this tragic incident.