He wasn’t; he was living in a hostel. The bail bit was introduced by the Metropolitan Police press office.

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.

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 was a nuisance, but that does not make a lawful case for assaulting him.

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?

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.

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.

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.