The death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protest in April 2009 may well go down as an incident which changed the instincts of many in Britain towards the police and how they go about their job of upholding law and order. It may appear a cold, withdrawn observation to make, and will be of no consolation to any of his loved ones, but when something as tragic and horrific as his death occurs, one can only hope that something representing an improvement on the status quo comes out of it. The decision to charge PC Simon Harwood with manslaughter over the affair suggests that this may just happen, regardless of the outcome.

Whether Mr Harwood is guilty of manslaughter or not is for him, his solicitor and in all likelihood a jury to decide. What we know is that Tomlinson, having finished his working day selling newspapers, attempted to make his way through the demonstrating crowd towards a homeless hostel on the evening of 1st April 2009. He was not a demonstrator, and posed no apparent danger to either those involved in the G20 protest or the police. However, he was followed by members of the Met’s Territorial Support Group and one of them (believed to be Harwood) swung back, baseball-style, struck him with a baton and then shoved him to the floor. Tomlinson attempted to walk away but collapsed almost immediately and was dead within minutes.

This would appear to be a fairly simple case to investigate, especially when recorded footage of this incident was leaked and shown on television. Establish the exact cause of death and, if necessary, identify the officer responsible. Then make a rational decision whether sufficient evidence exists to pursue a charge of either murder of manslaughter. Sounds straightforward, doesn’t it? Enter Dr ‘Freddy’ Patel, an accredited forensic pathologist who on the surface was a sensible choice to establish the cause of death. However, scratching beneath the surface begs the question as to why he was selected for the task, given that the Met had themselves written to the Home Office in 2005 to complain of glaring errors in some of Mr Patel’s work.

The most notable of these came in 2002. Patel had concluded that Sally White, who had been found dead in the flat of Anthony Hardy, had passed away as a result of a heart attack. This was despite the bloodying of her scalp and the presence of a bite mark on her thigh, but the ‘natural causes’ verdict was sufficient for the criminal investigation against Hardy to be closed. Hardy later confessed to killing Miss White prior to being convicted of the murders of Liz Valad and Brigitte McLennan in November 2003. The head and hands of both victims were never recovered and the remains of their bodies had been dumped in black bags. It is highly likely that but for Patel’s mistaken conclusion the previous year, Valad and McLennan would still be alive. Patel also found in the first instance that Ian Tomlinson had died of coronary artery disease, or in layman’s terms, a heart attack.

Amid protests from members of Mr Tomlinson’s family, a total of three further post-mortems were carried out during April 2009. Dr Nathaniel Carey immediately refuted Patel’s findings, concluding that Mr Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, with cirrhosis of the liver as a secondary cause. Dr Kenneth Shorrock and Dr Ben Swift, carrying out two separate post-mortems, took the side of Dr Carey in his view that the cause of death had been internal bleeding and not a heart attack.

However, the post-mortem of Dr Patel represented a strong piece of evidence that would damage the credibility of any attempt to pursue a prosecution for either murder or manslaughter. As a result of this, the case was closed by this time last year, and it appeared that those close to Ian Tomlinson would never see a resolution to the events surrounding his death. It was a also a deeply unsatisfactory ending for all those, myself included, who felt that the police had been allowed to behave as an army of the state, a law unto themselves, without fear of being held to account.

It turned out that Dr Patel’s negliegence in the Sally White case was not an isolated instance. In July 2010, he found himself before a GMC hearing in which 26 charges were levelled at his work spanning four criminal cases. The recurring theme was of failing to notice obvious signs that indicated death by less than natural causes, the sort that most of us would have spotted had we been presented with the corpse of Sally White. The GMC, an organisation which has been perceived as lenient and protective towards its own in the past, found Patel guilty on sufficient counts to suspend him for three months for ‘deficient professional performance.’

Earlier this year, Patel faced a ‘fitness to practice’ hearing over the Sally White post-mortem. The chairwoman of that hearing, Vickie Isaac, delivered this damning critique of his work:-

“The panel determined that it was clear from your first report that you had not adequately considered other possible modes of death, including asphyxia. Your conclusions were made without any adequate consideration of other possible modes of death, including asphyxia, and that this was irresponsible, not of the standard expected of a competent forensic pathologist when undertaking and reporting on special or forensic post mortem examination and liable to bring the medical profession into disrepute.”

Then at the start of this month, an inquest jury concluded that the (unnamed) officer in question had acted “illegally, recklessly and dangerously”. They also stated, with some finality, that Mr Tomlinson’s death was unlawful, and had been as a result of internal bleeding and not a heart attack. The GMC are now looking into the possibility of investigating Dr Patel and his fitness to practice again, and Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer was faced with a difficult decision of his own. Given that the original post-mortem remains a massive weapon for any well thought out defence, was it right to charge PC Harwood with manslaughter and make him face trial?

That he has done so appears to have the support of a large section of the population myself included. Assuming that PC Harwood pleads not guilty and does not accept a lesser charge such as ABH, only a jury can decide whether he killed Ian Tomlinson, albeit unintentionally. The surprising element in this story is how many people were horrified by the original decision not to prosecute, and were therefore in total agreement with Mr Starmer’s judgement that the original decision should be reversed. It would appear that there has also been a shift in general attitudes towards the role of the police in our society, and that is just as welcome, possibly more so.

Throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s, the notion of civil liberties was seen by the ‘silent majority’ in Britain as the terrain of ‘namby pamby lefites’ and academics who were out of touch with the ‘real world’. This single view completely dominated our political discourse and brought with it some dire consequences. Tuning into what he saw as the public mood and applying the law of 51 per cent, Tony Blair and his government passed a mountain of draconian legislation that slowly chipped away at some of the freedoms and principles established by the Magna Carta over 700 years earlier. These included the automatic right to a jury trial, the presumption of innocence and the principle of no detention without charge.

All were lightly regarded by a man looking to win over readers of the gutter press, and who sincerely believed that history began in 1997. Anyone objecting was presumed to be “soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime” and as a result, what the police wanted was what the police got. Control orders, a raft of ‘anti-terror’ legislation, additional CCTV and surveillance, new laws on ‘hate crimes’, ASBOs – I could go on. They were spoiled, and as an institution began to run riot like a spoiled child as a result.

The execution of Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell Tube Station in July 2005 appeared to change some minds, but then sections of the mainstream media diluted any legitimate sense of angst by reporting that the Brazilian had overstayed his visa. This of course was a tacit invitation for some readers to conclude that he was partially to blame for his own death. Eventually, no criminal proceedings were brought against any Met officer with regard to the shooting. It appears to have taken the death of a man born and raised here to awaken the general population to the concept that those responsible for upholding the law are not themselves above it, and that just like any other member of the public, they must answer and be accountable for their actions where necessary.

Over the last three decades, something has gone horribly wrong in the relationship between the police and the rest of us, with successive governments exacerbating the problem by competing in an arms race over who can be more ‘tough on crime’. The Peelian principle that ‘the police are the public are the public are the police’ appeared to be forgotten altogether at some point in recent history. People who call themselves Libertarians but idolise Margaret Thatcher all the same have either a poor grasp of history or a very selective case of amnesia, for her use of the police as a private army during the miners’ strike marked a very clear shift in how law enforcement related to those it was supposed to protect.

Whether you agree with the cause of the miners or not is irrelevant. The critical point is – any attempt or even pretence to cling to the Peelian notion that the police are a uniformed extension of you and I died the day that the Iron Lady sent armed police into a wave of protesting (and in some cases violent) strikers with the clear intention of smiting them, and putting them in their place. If one sees the record of the police in demonstrations and protests from that day on, they invariably reach the same conclusion, namely that the police serve the state, and care not a jot for the freedoms that they were once supposed to uphold.

Routine police brutality at the G8 and G20 protests against demonstrators, ‘kettling’ and penning them in like animals – again it does not matter one iota whether you or I agree with the point being made by the demonstrators. From watching footage of all of these protests on television and YouTube, it has become clear that the ‘right’ of the police to exert the will of the state has been judged to outweigh that of people wishing to make an expression of social or political conscience. People claiming that the police had been ‘too soft’ on the students and anti-cuts protesters in the last six months or so should watch some of the more graphic scenes at G8 or G20 and witness the alternative with their own eyes.

I saw the ‘too soft’ criticism as a positive sign that some sort of lesson had been learned from the death of Ian Tomlinson. In theory, it should never take something of this nature to prompt awkward questions to be asked of those in authority. However, history tends to point towards the reality that, sad as it may be, this is indeed the only type of incident that brings about positive change. I found PC Harwood’s evidence to the inquest last month remarkably revealing. Here’s a quote from it:-

“He (Tomlinson) just looked as if he was going to stay where he was, whatever happened, and was almost inviting physical confrontation in terms of being moved on.”

Now having watched the footage, Tomlinson appears more than anything to be somewhat lost and perplexed as to how he can negotiate his way through the crowd in front of him. Harwood himself seemed to contradict the statement above when he accepted that Tomlinson had not posed a threat to anyone. From a distance, the highlighted quote read as the words of an officer who certainly expected and was geared up for physical confrontation on the day, and whose mindset towards the job in hand may have reflected this.

It should be said that only a cross-examination of PC Harwood in the witness box will establish if this is the reality or not. It may also be the case that if Dr Patel is allowed to continue as a pathologist, the conflicting medical evidence will make a ‘not guilty’ verdict highly likely. However, what is absolutely clear and beyond doubt that there is a very serious case to answer and that Harwood should face trial. The law belongs not to the police or the judiciary, but to all of us, and this means that those charged with upholding the law should be no more exempt from it than you or I. If this case has helped to swing the balance back in that direction, albeit slightly, then at last some good has come from the tragic and avoidable death of Ian Tomlinson.

Outspoken Rabbit

C H Ingoldby
May 28, 2011 at 12:58

I’m glad to read some voices of common sense hear.

I keep reading about Saint Tomlinson, who was ‘viciously’ assaulted by
‘brutal’ ‘armed’ police.

The footage I watched clearly showed a man deliberately getting in the way
of the police in a riot situation. A man who deliberately sauntered away from
the police line, after being told to leave repeatedly, who walked in a
deliberately obstructive way.

In short, a man who deliberately put himself in a confrontational
situation, in a riot. As such, a shove to get him to move on was not
excessive, it was perfectly reasonable and actually quite restrained.

I’m also curious about how this mans family have appeared on the scene. He
was never there for them nor they there for him when he alive. It seems to me
like a lot of this is motivated by the prospect of fat ‘compensation’
payouts.

I’m not very friendly toward the police, but on this one i’m not going to
condemn them.

William Sweeney
June 8, 2011 at 21:08

Your are an Idiot….

Daz Pearce
June 8, 2011 at 22:55

Thanks for the coherent arguments there Will

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

William
Sweeney June 9, 2011 at 18:51

CH Ingoldby: How could you possibly make such a terrible statement
about the Tomlinson Famliy. Are you a Copper or something like
that.?
Harwoods brother or relation.? A dog with a hammer up his arse
could see Police were from the very outset Lying and, not by far, for the
first time. Using Patel to get them off the hook once again. Like i said
you are an idiot 8 June. keep your unjust opionions to yourself and leave
the Tomlinsons alone, To try and get some justice out of an extremely
unjust and corrupt legal system, Just Ask Kier Starmer.?

Malcolm Saunders
May 28, 2011 at 12:13

It seems a bit of a shame that people are forming up into support or oppose
the police on this.

Things don’t seem so clear cut to me.

Wreckers who go out to trespass on or damage property need to be prevented
from harming others in this way and the police must be able to do this in an
effective and professional way. ‘Kettling’ everybody who is a specific area
doesn’t seem to be a very sophisticated way of going about it and it doesn’t
do anything to stop continuing damage being done in the contained area. Police
have a lot of information available to them now from helicopter images and
prior intelligence. They should be able to isolate criminals from legitimate
demonstrators more effectively than they have been doing.

The maintenance of discipline within the police also seems to be an issue.
Apart from the occasions when Harwood hit Tomlinson with a baton and then
pushed him over, Harwood also struck a photographer and was filmed strutting
with a drawn baton in a manner that looked entirely at odds with the
professional conduct that is needed in these situations.

Tomlinson was personally responsible for stumbling about under the
influence of drink in the middle of public disorder.

It is unsatisfactory that the police at first denied any contact with
Tomlinson and would probably have maintained that position in the absence of
video evidence. This demonstrates that poor police standards will not be
addressed unless they are forced into doing it by being caught out. We should
expect ever improving standards of policing. The fact that we do not have them
shows that the systems for making the police accountable to those who pay for
them are not adequate.

It is unsatisfactory that the police chose a pathologist with an
unsatisfactory record to carry out the postmortem on Tomlinson. There is
reasonable suspicion that Dr Patel produced a death by natural causes decision
because that was what he thought was expected of him. There is no dispute that
Tomlinson had cirrhosis of the liver, but all the other pathologists who gave
evidence to the inquest said that he had not died from heart failure as
reported by Patel, but that he had suffered internal bleeding.

Tomlinson contributed to this incident by being where he was and not being
in full control of himself. The public should be served by open and honest
policing that protects all of them properly from criminal behaviour. That
didn’t happen.

A different Derek
May 28, 2011 at 12:10

Clearly ‘The Force’ is with us.

“An accident”. Being shoved hard from behind and struck with a baton whilst
moving, hands in pockets, away from officers. Some accident. Oh! You mean
Harwood didn’t mean to kill him? Of course – now I understand.

If justice is seen to be done, then Patel would be struck off, and Harwood
imprisoned.

Kingbingo May 28, 2011 at 13:16

Where do you work Derek?

If thousands of yobs turned up and start smashing the place up would you
want the police to act as meekly as possible? scared of saying boo to a
goose. If you don’t cooperate you get a frown.

Heretic June 2, 2011 at 00:23

@Kingbingo
Hey, Bingo Bango Bongo, so this is where you hide
out.
Caught you!
Sad, because for once I agree with you.
Expect
more persecution!

William Sweeney
June 8, 2011 at 21:05

I think both Harwood and Patel be put in prison, Patel giving the longer
sentence…..

Jonathan Miller
May 28, 2011 at 09:37

…just re-read DerekP’s comment.
Absolutely spot on. The police appear to
have lied in their evidence.
If we cannot trust the police to tell the
truth ( and we clearly cannot ), why do they deserve our support.

Jonathan Miller
May 28, 2011 at 09:26

There is a very unpleasant theme of ‘he was a lefty scuzzer’ so he deserved
it running through these comments.

Being a policeman does not give one the right to assault members of the
public. Being under stress or on the receiving end of a bit of lip does not
give the police the right to assault members of the public. Claiming that
‘things were worse in the past’, or ‘are worse elsewhere [Spain]‘ does not
make it acceptable for the police to assault members of the public.

Old Slaughter thinks that the police are not ‘armed’. He(?) should try
carrying an extendable side-arm baton (or truncheon in his terminology) down
his local high street and see how far he gets. It is an offence for a member
of the public to carry such an implement in a pubilc place (without good
cause). If a member of the public would be considered ‘armed’ when carrying
such an item, the police are certainly ‘armed’.

I second JuliaM in repeating that the assault was from behind, and add that
it was with a weapon, and appears to have been motivated by spite.

Kingbingo May 27, 2011 at 20:21

This post made me angry, what bleeding heart tosh. Ian Tomlinson was
displaying a classic bad altitude and got a shove. If that was enough to kill
him he would have died of something else in the next week or so, you don’t die
from a shove. The man did not look in all fairness like the vision of health,
a lifetime of poor diet, lack of exercise and far too much alcohol I’m willing
to wager.

To make out as if a man was brutally slain is tosh. His “Go #### yourself”
response to the police who were coming under extreme pressure from thousands
of people trying to goad them made him perfectly deserving of a shove. The
fact he was in such poor health that it possibly was the straw that broke the
[camels] ‘heart attacks’ back is not the same thing as everyone getting
excited over putting a police officer on trial for murder. What nonsense.

If you think our police, even if you think PC Harwood are brutal you are
I’m afraid very naive. Watch this clip from Spain’s recent protests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtaNg8c8OtU&feature=player_embedded
about 30 seconds your see a classic example of police brutality. PC Harwood is
not remotely in the same league as those Spanish police, not remotely.

Finally, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was there. I took the
day off to see for myself what happens at these things first hand so I would
not have to rely on the media to interpret for me. I saw how the police
behaved all day, I saw how the media and the protestors did. Of course I was
not everywhere. But in the hours I was there I saw more than enough to know
the problem was not the police, by the contrary, they showed truly remarkable
restraint.

Jabba the Cat May 27, 2011 at 22:20

Good post Kingbingo that makes a sharp contrast to all the armchair
bleeding heart liberals surfacing round here.

BenSix May 28,
2011 at 12:07

You think being uncooperative makes you deserving of a hard shove from
behind? I know who’d disagree with that: the police. (In any other
situation, naturally.)

Kingbingo
May 28, 2011 at 13:14

“You think being uncooperative makes you deserving of a hard shove from
behind?”

In the middle of a riot. Yes.

People are talking about this as if he was out walking his dog through
the countryside. The police were trying as hard as they could to contain
thousands of yobs from smashing the place to pieces and IanT was asked to
move on while they were trying to get this done. Like I said, bad
attitude, deserved a shove, just so happened that his shitty health was
such that it might have been the last of thousand other factors that
triggered the heart attack that was on its way anyway.

DerekP May 27, 2011 at 09:12

– Video shows Tomlinson, on his own, trying to leave the area to get home
but being turned back towards the trouble by various police lines;
– video
shows Tomlinson being attacked from behind when he is moving away from police
(police who are clearly not under immediate threat because of the number you
see standing around as Tomlinson is attacked).
Exactly what more is it you
think Tomlinson should have done?

Video contradicts the original claims put out by the police; without the
video evidence that originally emerged from a member of the public the
majority of us would have believed the police.

William Sweeney
June 8, 2011 at 20:58

That is exactly the reason why Patel was called because Police and City
of London Coroner “Knew he was Bent, “Struck Off” the Home Office list of
forensic Pathologist way back in 2004. But “Still on the GMC regestrar….. He
was not on “Any list of Police force. The City of London Police paid his
Post Mortem examination Fees £2,500 to get rid of the 3 liters of
circulatory blood evidence found in Mr Tomlinsons stomach Cavity. Proof He
did NOT die of “Natural Causes! Why is he not prosecuted for obviously
trying to pervert the true course of Justice.? Which is a criminal
act…….

Jiks May 27, 2011 at 04:58

Attacking passing uninvolved people from behind is not restoring law and
order, it is destroying it.

john malpas May 27, 2011 at 01:11

What would you suggest the response to violent ‘protest’ be?
You are
there as the mob starts smashing and burning and even hitting. What precisely
would you have done?
What should the state have done. And would it restore
law and order.

JuliaM May 27,
2011 at 08:24

The response should be hard, fast and above all, accurate.

None of the standing around with thumbs up (censored) that constitutes
modern-day police riot control. It’s the waiting and waiting and waiting –
designed to allow the rioters to wear themselves out, and CCTV evidence to
be gathered for later prosecutions – that leads to innocent people getting
caught up.

All to avoids tv pictures of Crusty & chums getting a little bit
roughed-up.

Paint-Work May 26, 2011 at 22:50

So which “newspaper” was it he was selling again?

John P Reid May 26, 2011 at 21:05

Interesting that the Police had pointed ou to the Home office that they
felt that Patel’s previous work was questionable, I’d heard from left wing
blogs that the police had deliberatly got a ulseless pathologist, whpo would
muck it up ,to (originally) get Harwood cleared.

William Sweeney
June 8, 2011 at 20:41

Dr Patel has a history of utter criminal corruption. Like Coroners, He
only acts in favor of police and state agencies. “Sally Rose White, Because
he claimed Murdered Sally had died of Natural Causes, Two other innocent
women were also murdered.! Alan Sweeney, Rodger Sylvester. Danial Abrey,
Young children. Ian Tomlinson. This evil Monster should have been locked up
Years ago.! It is obvous why he keeps getting away with covering up murder.
If righfully criminally prosecuted he would “Spill the Beans on the State
who he has conspiered with for Years. Get a life and see the truth when is
is so obvious he lied detroying Blood evidence to get Thug Harwood Off….

John B May 26, 2011 at 21:04

Sorry, I STILL can’t write in these boxes.

John B May 26, 2011 at 21:02

Afraid I tend to agree with Old Slaughter. Things get tough in a battle
zone and that is what certain people hostile to liberty make determined
efforts to create (a war zone) at what might otherwise be peaceful
demos.
Nothing is perfect and in human affairs sometimes the best that can
be done is to move is broad, and what could be found to be unfair,
moves.
Thus the only advice in a battle zone is to get the heck out and if
you can’t, to get your head down.
WWll was about a lot of innocent people
getting killed to “preserve democracy”.
How can we expect every day to be a
walk in the park?
Tough times are ahead.
After Thatcher’s team restored
some order, there were about two decades of peace and prosperity.
Socialism
was discredited and common sense came to be valued, to the extent that was
managed.
There were also some dreadful and compromises.
One cannot
confuse principles with what is achievable in practice, given the evil with
which one has to work.

Lord Snooty May 26, 2011 at 20:04

Bravo OUTSPOKENRABBIT

Jiks May 26, 2011 at 16:53

In my opinion, excellent post. Most especially for this statement: “Over
the last three decades, something has gone horribly wrong in the relationship
between the police and the rest of us.”

I should be, indeed was, a natural supporter of the police for various
reasons. However, I now view anyone in a uniform of any stripe with great
suspicion. For incidents to others like the one highlighted here, for their
complete disinterest in taking any action when I’ve been the victim of crime,
their seeming relish in thought crimes and acting for the state and against
the people.

It is a sorry state of affairs. I know there are still many decent members
of the police out there, the above is not directed at you guys, it’s a system
problem, one that desparately needs fixing…

Talwin May 26, 2011 at 14:47

You suggest that the Peelian principle that “the police are the public and
the public are the police” has been forgotten.

I don’t agree: I think it’s just as valid as ever it was. That’s the
trouble.

Innocent
Bystander May 26, 2011 at 14:06

This comment is disappointing in many ways. The Police have a job to do, so
you should not saunter past them even if you are confused: you will be liable
to be beaten up and it will be your own fault. If you die that is too bad and
not the fault of the Police.
If the Police are to have ANY kind of
credibility they have to be subject to the same laws as the rest of the
population. The failure of the officers concerned to be identified and charged
immediately following the incident is damning enough.

Old Slaughter
May 26, 2011 at 13:49

This post is disappointing in several ways. The man’s death was a tragedy
and an accident. Too many people go too far.

“He (Tomlinson) just looked as if he was going to stay where he was,
whatever happened, and was almost inviting physical confrontation in terms of
being moved on.”

You may have seen the footage and disagree, I have seen it and agree. Yes
they are the police and we don’t have to snap to attention when they give
orders. But this was no normal day, this was a day when everyone was preparing
for riots etc. and if you are a member of public not involved you should IMO
opinion be happy to stay clear and give the police some slack. Basically if
they say they need to clear or seal off a street as part of their operation to
prevent swampies smashing shit up, then most people would say ‘fair enough’
and move on. I repeat, on a normal day, tell them to ‘sod off’ as much as you
like, but it would be a lie to suggest they didn’t have a serious job to do
that day. Some when asked to move on might put a little spring in their step
to help out.
In that footage Tomlinson is sauntering with his hands in his
pocket, to me he looks like he is being deliberately slow and awkward. If for
example, he had been asked several times to get a move on, to clear out, and
hypothetically was deliberately being slow and awkward and not making a clear
attempt to get a move on, then hey you might take a little shove in the back.
Maybe even quite a big shove in the back.
This to me is not some heinous
brutality, it is something that can easily be avoided, just do exactly what
the police ask and stay out of their way when they have thousands of people to
deal with and you are not part of either side of that struggle. So your quote
above in my opinion fits exactly the footage I have seen.
And so what are
we accusing the man of? On a serious day with serious work to be done, an
individual not making a serious effort to move on after being asked repeatedly
gets a shove from behind freakishly (yes FREAKISHLY) that shove kills him.
Moral? Get a move on when asked by a copper who is busy trying to prevent a
riot.

I would point out I have very little time for our police, especially these
days, bullies, bureaucrats, and woefully inefficient in so many aspects.
Shamefully so.
I still want them to do their job however. Included in that
is working hard to make sure inconsistent and incoherent swampies not get to
smash up the city every year on some ‘anarchist’ whim. On days like that I
help them by staying away and if I cannot and come into contact with them, I
help by doing exactly what they ask. If I don’t and get a shove? That is my
problem and my fault.

Oh also you said ‘armed police’. What were they armed with? If you say
truncheons then I would suggest you are using disingenuous language.

Finally to compare this to the Menezes incident in any way is shameful.
That was an accident, no more no less. Mistaken ID. Tragedy, sorry, will try
not to do it twice. Absolutely no more than that but a small operational
mistake with big yet forgivable consequences. (The subsequent spinning by Sir
Ian Blair was in my opinion the far bigger crime that the shooting of poor
Jean Charles.)

JuliaM May 26,
2011 at 14:16

“…and if you are a member of public not involved you should IMO
opinion be happy to stay clear and give the police some slack. “

And if they’ve kettled you and you CAN’T leave the area?

JuliaM May 26,
2011 at 14:26

“In that footage Tomlinson is sauntering with his hands in his pocket,
to me he looks like he is being deliberately slow and awkward. If for
example, he had been asked several times to get a move on, to clear out, and
hypothetically was deliberately being slow and awkward and not making a
clear attempt to get a move on, then hey you might take a little shove in
the back. Maybe even quite a big shove in the back.
This to me is not
some heinous brutality…”

Nor to me. But it was completely unnecessary. And not totLly out of
character for that particular officer, I suspect, as we will no doubt hear
at the trial…

Gordo May 26, 2011 at 17:25

“do exactly what the police ask and stay out of their way”

Requires no comment really. This is not Britain any more.

alan May 26, 2011 at 20:03

This is not Britain any more.

Quite, in the good old days we would send in the army and start hosing
down people with a Gatling gun when the trouble started.

Gordo May 27, 2011 at 09:28

Vickers surely, and never in the homeland.

alan
May 27, 2011 at 17:34

The most infamous use of the army to stop a protest on British soil
(London) was the Gordon Riots (anti Catholic protests) ~300 were shot
dead and ~200 wounded in 1780.

The army was used to stop protesters in the general strike in 1842
in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Halifax and Skipton killing 4 people.

There were almost 10 years of anti Salvation Army violent protests
across the UK in the 1880′s in which the police were not shy in trying
to maintain order. (Cant find references to numbers of casualties)

In 1920 there were the Bloody Sunday shootings in Dublin (S.Ireland
was part of the UK between 1801-1922) where the army and police used
machine guns, rifles and hand pistols. 14 deaths, 80 injured.
(Although the IRA had shot 13 officers a few hours earlier)

Throughout British & UK history its been very good advice to
“do exactly what the police ask and stay out of their way” when
the state is trying to prevent a protest getting out of hand.

And RantyBunny should take note that current state practices during
protests are positively peaceful compared to days of old.

Jabba the Cat May 26, 2011 at 22:32

I’m with Old Slaughter on this.

Pissed newspaper seller wanders into riot zone and gets belligerent when
asked to move on by the police, then gets whacked by police truncheon on
rear of leg, falls to deck and dies. Wrong place, wrong time, shit happens
move on…

JuliaM May 27,
2011 at 08:26

You forgot ‘shoved to the ground FROM BEHIND while moving away from the
confrontation’.