Geeez the Summit isn't going well

a couple of witnesses including a press photographer say they saw him being hit on the head with a baton,

 

What the fuck? Are you doctor or something? This is a dead man with family and friends youre talking about, so yes, I do find passing judgement on him like this pretty offensive when you have no basis for it whatsoever, infact I think its pretty sick

As for him looking like a stubborn child, a few of the witnesses are saying he was beaten up beforehand and may have taken a blow to the head, which would account for him looking quite unsteady on his feet. Even if he really was being stubborn, was it enough to provoke violence? No, it wasnt. He wasnt even part of the protest. So yeah as you say, inappropriate.

While I agree the video isnt as bad as some others Ive seen, the man has DIED, and thats why any unprovoked violence against him is so important here

 

Had to have a lol

 

See the things you say when under stress !!! I wish you would just pick up your old bad habits again, and be your sweet self again

Peace

 

Kinda thought that myself.
The lefty newspapers (the gaurdian et al) had him "walking away from the police" .... but, the video does look like he was widing them up.
Given he was milling around for nearly an hour and a half...I doubt he was "heading home" either.
I realise he could have been penned in...but I reckon he got drunk and wanted to cause a bit off hassle.
Like: "why can't I walk down there, PC Plod? I should be able too...it is a free country (etc etc etc)".

Other than pushing him so violently he landed on his ass?
I don't really think he (Ian) knew what he was doing though.

Maybe, but it still wasn't cool.
The police officer is obviously getting the shit for his death - for some no evidence will alter that - and the poor dead chap will be heralded as a hero of the people etc etc.
I just think he popped his clogs 'cuz (as you say) : he was fat and outta shape.
If the police officer did contribute to the poor guys death - he should be in prison for a very long time.
His (PC Plod) behaviour was completely out of line.

There are reports of "contact" over 90 minutes before he died.
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell he was doing for 90 minutes.
I'm not sure he was penned in and could not get home.
It might be an excuse by the protestors and lefty newspapers to deny a fact he could have just been walking around in circles absolutely hammered. Not quite the image they want to give him I imagine.

I'd also like to know where he lived in relation to the direction he was heading.

 

Apparently he's been found to have died from an abdominal injury. The officer involved has been questioned under suspicion of manslaughter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-g20-protest-coroner

 

Well what a surprise

 

I heard preliminary findings pointing to an abdominal injury, too.
Heavy blood loss, internally, being the apparent cause of death.
But, lilke the doctors being carted out to put the blame on the ploice, would say...it is too early to know what the cause of that abdominal injury was. Lets not speculate.

Lol...the Gaurdian have had the best few weeks, ever.
I read that they think the police - around, Ian - where all in on it and they worked as a team...a team to hide the truth? or as is normal, how police operate when they are working...much like any group of people.? they didn't say...what a suprise!

 

Would this have been investigated if that video hadn't surfaced? I doubt it.

Yes, any normal group of working people who go around hitting people so hard they die of internal injuries...

 

Perhaps. Eye witness accounts may have been enough to provoke an investigation.

Not the point. The Gaurdian seems to be infering the Police worked together - that day - to hurt that gentleman (you may not have read the comment I am talking about). They worked in a team. Not one person taking it upon themselves to push a person that hard.

It's nice you have come to the conclusion it was the police's fault even before there is conclusive proof.

Don't get me wrong, if it is proved there was a connection, i'd say the police officer, in question, should do some prison time, no doubt about that.
I'm not saying there is no possibility of a connection.
I'm just not willing to buy into the "trial by media." It clearly isn't fair.

Neither do I think the Police officers worked in a team to hurt that particular person.
I'm sure though you could make some tenuos link.

I've read the Gaurdians coverage since that fateful day, it has been scandalous.

 

Complexity of meaning was never your strong point matthew, I've suggested no such thing.

I doubt there is any kind of teamwork directed towards hurting people, that's a plain and somewhat fatuous point. Surely the relevant point would be that the team in question may have engaged in what you might call a conspiracy of silence, failing to report possible abuses by over-zealous colleagues, which is what I would expect of a police force who carry such responsibility to protect members of the public, perhaps idealistically. This would be a general problem of attitude within the police. Why should it take eyewitness reports or video evidence for this to come out? If I was a police officer and one of my colleagues was using disproportianate force and abusing his position, I would hope I would be working within a culture which would expect me to bring that up with my superiors.

Examples?

 

"people who go around hitting people so hard they die of internal injuries..."

What other meaning should I garner from this?

That is what I thought, too.

I could be wrong, but the media (the gaurdian in particular) seems to have taken upon itself to think they brought all of this to light.
The moment the event occured, I wonder if the people that took the pictures and video, contacted the relevant police force or the media (first)?
The cynic in me thinks, the media...who can print the "facts" a lot quicker than the police can or should.
But, to be fair, I doubt we shall know if any police officers said something first, or not.

Could you read any subjectively?

 

You missed out the key part of the quote which indicates the ironic intent of the sentence. The sentence began: "Any normal group of working people who..." The use of a lengthy and mannered phrase "normal group of working people" emphasises the absurd juxtaposition between "normal working people" and "hitting people so hard they die". How could you not detect its sarcastic tone? The purpose of my ironic sentiment here was to pinpoint your apparently bizarre suggestion that this situation somehow represents a normal working environment, one in which a member of the public ended up dead and one in which there is the clear possibility of abuse of power and potentially manslaughter...

This is a fair point, we don't know that this officer wasn't reported by his colleagues, but given the police's statements on the matter both prior to and following the breaking of the story and the appearance of the video I would say on the face of it it would seem rather unlikely. If I were a betting man, I'd say the investigation came about because of the media pressure and the dossier of evidence given to the PCC.

You may mean objectively. "Scandalous" doesn't seem to me to be a particularly objective description. I'm intrigued to see the coverage you believe to be scandalous...

 

I get it, now. I get what you did there. I did mean it literally:
Teamwork is a joint action by two or more people or a group, in which each person contributes with different skills and Express his or her individual interests and opinions to the unity and efficiency of the group in order to achieve common goals.
I guess I need to get up a little earlier in the morning (and not drink so much the previous night.)
Thank God you have not jumped ahead of the investigation...I suppose that is something.

I didn't say it was a normal working environment.
I did say the police work in a team.
But, I do get your point.

The initial statement does not mention any incident, no.
This could mean they did know there was contact, but did not know enough at the time, to make a fair comment on the situation...or, they did not know and there was a "wall of silence."
Again, the cynic in me thinks the media would rather take the credit.

You could be right. http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/nr150409_g20youtube.htm
But, the police may have been dealing with issues - arising from the incident - as an internal disciplinary matter, the next working day or day after. I wouldn't trust the media to tell me if this was the case. I want the Metropolitan police to be more vocal about the timeline of events, though. Maybe time will tell.

Probably.

I mean: disgraceful; shameful and shocking.
Disgraceful, because they have failed to give the full timeline:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson (his movements were known a good hour before 7pm.) Shameful, because they have filled their newspaper, alomst on a daily basis, with peoples opinons and very few facts...this should not shock me of other media outlets, but it does in this case, as I thought The Gaurdian was above a self congratulatory tone and blatant self promotion. They will be saying they brought Justice for Ian and his family, next. The story should be about Ian, not The Gaurdian.

I just can't read The Gaurdians coverage with out getting very pissed off.

The coverage has been weighted against the Metropolitan police...in favour of The Gaurdian and it's role in all of this, most deffinitly.

 

I haven't read very much of the guardian's coverage but what I have seen could certainly not be described as "scandalous". All the evidence I've seen suggests the police were using disproportionately aggressive and confrontational tactics at this demonstration. The Tomlinson case highlights this and has therefore been picked up on to represent the wider issue. That's always going to happen, focusing on small details of a wider case, even in a highbrow paper like the Guardian - I've seen the Telegraph run similar stories to those run by the Guardian, focusing on the details of Tomlinsons' movements and contacts with the police.

Still entirely failing to see the "scandalous" thing from the link you posted. That timeline seems to have been published 8th April - were his contacts with police before 7pm known at that point? We can't really criticise an article for not including facts which were not in the public domain at the time of publication...

 

Well, it certainly would take more than a brief glance at their coverage to determine the overall tone and content.
I've pretty much read their whole output so far...it would take more than me posting a few articles to grasp what I mean...and why I think it scandalous.

I'm not talking about the media picking up on the story...or the how it may represent wider issues.

If you say they (The Gaurdian) are "focusing on the details of Tomlinsons' movements and contacts with the police" - it appears they are not doing a very good job...that or certain details of his last movements don't fit The Gaurdians paradigm.

I noticed it was published on the 8th. I have also noticed in the section dedicated to him, they say: Ian Tomlinson's last movements .
Now, I can't remember if his movements were known before the 8th - I think they were, but i'm not sure. I commented on this on the 10th, but can't remember when I knew.

I do know they were not known before the 6th, as a IPPC report doesn't mention that fact: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr060409_tomlinsoninv.htm
I can't find anything for the 7th.

It really doesn't matter at this point, because they could have updated the information accordingly. They seemingly have chosen not to.
Scandalous!

Where is this information on their website?
Why have they missed out he was drunk and pissing the police off for about an hour - before 7pm?
You would think they would have some mention of it, within something titled:...last movements of..., wouldn't you.
Seems to be a carefully managed con job to me.
Scandalous.!

OK, rather than "scandalous" how about: A load of steaming crap.

Btw, somebody seems to have not been honest:

Barry Smith, who runs the newspaper store outside Monument Tube station where Mr Tomlinson helped out, paid tribute to his friend today.
Mr Smith, who knew the dead man for 26 years, said: “He was like a brother to me. I never had a brother but he looked after me and would stand up for me.”
Mr Smith said he first met Mr Tomlinson while working as a street cleaner in London.
He said: “He didn’t work at the store but he’d just sit here and help me out.
“He left that night at 7pm and was dead at 7.30. If I had had another bundle of papers he would still be here."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2366491.ece

 

The incident described in this article relates to what I've understood to be Tomlinson's first encounter with the police, where he was apparently obstructing a police van:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/ian-tomlinson-g20-photographs

The Guardian article has photographs of the incident which are timed at just after 7pm.

I've read elsewhere, in this Telegraph article that this incident was supposed to have happened "shortly after 6pm".

Presumably if the timings on the digital photographs are correct, this would contradict that version entirely. Obviously we can't be sure that the clock on the camera wasn't wrong, but it seems far from clear that the timing you have decided is the correct one is indisputable. Where did you get your information? Why are you so sure the "hanging around for more than an hour" thing is the correct version?

 

Well spotted.

Well, i'm glad The Gaurdian have finally caught up.

Thursday 16 April

They are not new, though. Well not really. Not telling us anything most people don't already know.

Published: 09 Apr 2009
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece

It is a possibility that the person altered their clock on the camera - for British Summer Time - incorrectly.
But, it could also be right, it could have happened after 7pm...this would make his mate an honest geezer, too.
It was quite widely reported, that it occured after six (even your recent Telegraph article repeats that line)...but that doesn't always make it true, I appreciate that.
I was certain of it being the correct version, because it has been widely reported as being correct (as I say).
I'll happily stand corrected if it turns out I am wrong.

I'd be glad if any clarity is made on this point.

 

So your case for the Guardian's coverage being "scandalous" and "a load of steaming crap" was that it didn't agree with the version you were certain was true, despite having no evidence that your version was any more accurate than the Guardian's version?

Good job

 

I knew you were aiming towards that. I could feel it coming.
No, the timeline (and the factual accuracy) was but a mere fraction of why I was pissed off with their coverage.