Geeez the Summit isn't going well

That's the only actual example of "scandalous" coverage you gave, and it turns out to be little more than your own biased agenda talking. You were confidently declaring that Tomlinson was "drunk and pissing the police off for about an hour". There actually seems to be no evidence for this at all, and some evidence suggesting the contrary has been in the public domain for a few days.

Give me some examples of the "scandalous" coverage that has so angered you and I will be happy to change my mind. I really have no axe to grind here, I'm not a champion of the Guardian, I was just surprised at the strength of your language ("disgrace", "shocking" etc). I've seen nothing so far which would deserve such emotive epithets.

 

Well said

 

It isn't MY biased agenda, it was the truth as I knew at the time, it still could be true. But, as I said: "I'll happily stand corrected if it turns out I am wrong." I still do think he was drunk and pissing off the police, I'm just not so confident it was just after 6pm.

I seem to have taken more of an interest in this story than you.
Up untill yesterday, the infotmation I knew was hardwired, much like anybody's who had had studied the information.
As I had not studied anything since the 16th...I still could stand by my opinion.
Are you telling me that there has not been a time that you thought you knew something and then that information had been tested?
I would imagine you could be confident in what you were saying...then things can change. The honest thing to do is admit you could be mistaken, which I have.

I also said:

The Gaurdian seems to be infering the Police worked together.
They have filled their newspaper, alomst on a daily basis, with peoples opinons and very few facts.
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.
The coverage has been weighted against the Metropolitan police...in favour of The Gaurdian and it's role in all of this, most deffinitly.
It would take more than me posting a few articles to grasp what I mean...and why I think it scandalous.
Why have they missed out he was drunk and pissing the police off.

I'll happily stand corrected if it turns out I am wrong.

I admit the strengh of my language is strong, that is because the coverage in The Gaurdian has pissed me off...but as you have read little of their coverage it is not so easy to express why I am so angry...as we do not have an equal amount of information.

You are going to sit there and wait for me to clearly define why I think the coverage was "scandalous"...at the end of the day it is just a word, and I refuse to define my thoughts in a dictionary definition. That is why I said: "a load of steaming crap" - how would I define that?

 

There are some eyewitness suggestions he may have been drunk, and he was struggling with alcoholism, though his colleague says he was sober that day. There is little suggestion he was doing anything confrontational, in fact quite the reverse. Even in the pictures of the first contact when he was supposedly blocking the path of a riot van, he seems to be standing on the pavement when the van driver is leaning out of the window, not standing in the middle of the road - he may have moved himself out of the way, but this does not correspond with the eyewitness account that he was stood in the middle of the road until riot police forced him to the side. Eyewitness accounts say he was moving away from the police, not being beligerent or confrontational.

This assumption of yours that he was drunk, hanging around and pissing off the police seems to have come from nowhere other than your own bias here, matthew.

Even if he WAS drunk and "pissing off the police", what bearing does this have on the case? The police are not there to get pissed off and lash out - that's the behaviour of thugs. Judging by reports of police tactics that day it did not take much to piss off the police anyway - just being anywhere near the protest seemed to be enough. Surely the point here is that the police's behaviour was totally unacceptable even were they "pissed off". The protest seems to have been overwhelmingly peaceful, with the police as the aggressors in many cases.

If this tragic case highlights that fact and gets questions asked about police tactics, attitudes and behaviour, then it's a very important story indeed and one which deserves plenty of coverage and ongoing pressure. The ongoing media coverage is serving that purpose well.

I've read a fair amount of the coverage now, both from the Guardian and other broadsheets. You have come up with lots of accusations and name calling, no actual evidence. Seems to me to be something of an emotive kneejerk reaction here indicating a fairly hefty amount of subjective bias. You don't seem to be able to back your strong emotions up with any facts. Surely if the coverage was scandalous, disgraceful, steaming crap ... you would be able to show me a few articles which match this description? Where is the scandal?

If you're happy to just have a strong emotional response that Tomlinson was somehow in the wrong and that the Guardian is a pile of steaming lefty crap for not saying so, without being able to back either of these opinions up, you're welcome to it, but it seems like this is a fairly clear indicator of your bias and prejudice, and not much more.

 

The trouble with photo's is you can't see what is really going on.
We can't really say if he walked in the path of the van or didn't.
But, I do think he did...you don't just lean out of a van and say: (paraphrase):" Get the hell out of the way" if somebody is not in your way, do you?

I am making the assumption he was pissing off the police, because there were other people in the pictures and video...none seemingly getting any attention from the police. Why was it that Ian had some trouble and nobody else around him? Was he targeted for no apparent reason?

I also think he was drunk - or atleast he had had a few -, because eyewitness' say he was unsteady on his feet. I'm not trying to suggest he was raving drunk, and making a complete ass of himself. But, his demeanour seems to suggest he wanted his own way, come hell or high water (a good sign of being a little pissed, wouldn't you say?.)

My assumption he was hanging around, comes from the supposed amount of time he was on the scene.
If it turns out the whole thing lasted less than 30 minutes, fine, I am wrong.
I'm not clinging to thought he was drunk, either.

Even so, I do think he was making a nuisance of himself and was being obstinate.

He'd probably be at home right now, if he wasn't.
There would be no case for the police to answer, because he probably wouldn't have had contact with the police.

Nagh, there were plenty of peaceful people there, had a good day and went home. I know a few that did just that.
It was completely wrong of that particular officer to lash out so aggresively, no doubt about that.

There are plenty of pictures of police doing absolutely nothing.
Obviously, the media would rather focus on the front line, and where there were clashes, rather than the boring detail, not a lot happened, really. Aside from this tragic incident.

I'm not defending the particular police officers behaviour in anyway, it was unacceptable.
The overall behaviour and tactics of the police - that day - is only being looked at, because they look at that when ever there is a large scale protest.
They just want to calm (quiet, even) the public and critics by saying it is because of their reaction, that behaviour/tactics are being looked at, wouldn't you say?

The majority of my feeling, here, is the way it was reported (in the Gaurdian)...end of.

I think the whole thing is getting over-egged.

I don't think I have had a knee jerk reaction, thank you very much.
I've been reading The Gaurdians coverage for a few weeks now; it is difficult to sum up two weeks of feeling in a short space of time.

Where have I said he was in the wrong? I have not said that, have I?
I did not say the Gaurdian was: "a pile of steaming lefty crap for not saying so". Where have I said that? I have not said that, have I?
I do not have to back either of those things up, do I?

I am saying I do not like the way this story is being covered (in The Gaurdian)...and gave a few reasons why.
If you don't think The Gaurdian is:
Infering the Police worked together.
Filling their newspaper, alomst on a daily basis, with peoples opinons and very few facts.
Self congratulatory
Self promoting.
Will be saying they brought Justice for Ian and his family, next.
Talking too much about itself rather than, Ian.
Weighting their coverage against the Metropolitan police...in favour of The Gaurdian and it's role in all of this.

We must agree to disagree.

 

Where is the evidence of nuisance and obstinacy? A different interpretation might be was a bit drunk, or just confused, frail, fragile - he was a serious alcoholic - and consequently unable to react quickly to situations around himself. The footage of him ambling along in front of the police before he gets pushed suggests a delicate, tottering person walking slowly and carefully, not an obstinate nuisance. You seem very sure of yourself here - another kneejerk assumption.

Whatever his behaviour - and there's not enough evidence to conclude either way - this detracts from the point, that it was the police's behaviour which was unacceptable. Whether walking slowly and failing to move through obstinacy or through confusion and drunkenness, it does not in any way excuse the way he was treated. The police's behaviour should have been to exactly the same standard no matter why he was there and what he was doing, as long as he was behaving himself, not breaking any laws, not threatening anyone or being a danger.

Why so insistent that he was obstinate, causing a nuisance, pissing people off? What relevance does this have to the case other than to try to excuse the police's behaviour?

This doesn't actually need saying. Obviously the media will report the news story, not the absence of one. It's an incredibly important news story for the reasons I've highlighted. The tragic death of Tomlinson is only newsworthy insofar as it brings to public attention the unacceptable attitudes and behaviour of the police, and not just at this protest.

No it wasn't a direct quote, but yes this is what you have said. You've suggested he was being obstinate and a nuisance - putting his behaviour in the wrong. You used the word "lefty" a few times earlier to describe coverage of the case, and here you suggested the Guardian failed to report that Tomlinson was "drunk and pissing the police off" - clearly you regard this as a fact to be reported. (It is not.) This is not an unfair or unreasonable summary of the attitude you have shown here if you look back over your earlier posts.

Yes I've seen those accusations, which seem to me unfounded - can you give me examples?

 

I said: "I think". Do you want evidence of a thought? Mmm, tricky.
I think he was a nuisance because other people around him did not have any contact with police - they went about their business and then reacted to the only person walking towards the police.
Why was he the only person walking towards the police?
Why does he look like he was saying: "I want to go down there, why can't I?" - did it ever cross his mind there was quite a big protest going on around him and the police didn't want him or anybody going down that particular road?
Not really rocket science, is it?

Yes, I am making big assumptions...but, so are you (though you don't seem to have solid opinions about this incident, to be honest.)

Absolutely, I agree.

Absolutely, I agree.

It gives a reason for the police contact, that is all.

I know we have gone wildy off the actual point, but no worries.
I too am looking at the conduct of the police that particular day.
I'd like to know if they have learnt any lessons.
Obviously, not pushing a person so that hard is a lesson they should already know.

Seemingly not content with putting words in to my mouth, you are physic too. I said I think he was being a nuisance and was obstinant, in response to your very last post. How could those words have suddenly informed your assumptions, when I hadn't even written them yet?

Yes, I did say the Gaurdian was "lefty" but I didn't say The Gaurdian was: "a pile of steaming lefty crap for not saying so" or anything like that.
If I had meant that, I would have said that.
Stop grabbing words from all my posts then twisting my words and making inferences that are not actually there. Thanks.
We can agree The Gaurdian is "lefty", right? that was ALL I was saying when I used that word.

If you don't think what I said is true, we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

I'd like to know why you think that, on the basis that opinions and ideas ought to be based on evidence. If they're not evidence based, they're usually a result of prejudice and bias which is what seems to be the case here.

There could be lots of reasons why he got involved with the police several times. One of which is that he was deliberately being obstinate and a nuisance, but there are other equally plausible explanations, not the least of which being bad luck. The notion that he was obstinately making a nuisance of himself and pissing the police off, which you seem to have been treating as fact until I picked you up on it, is a big biased assumption for which there is no evidence.

You talked about the lefty coverage being biased, you called it a steaming load of crap, you called it scandalous. When asked why, you said the Guardian "missed" reporting that Tomlinson was drunk and "pissing off the police" (ie. 'in the wrong'). I fail to see what your problem is with my summary of these ideas in the sentence "[you think] Tomlinson was somehow in the wrong and that the Guardian is a pile of steaming lefty crap for not saying so". That seems to be a fair and accurate summary of what you've said.

 

Like I keep saying. I think that way because of what I have seen in the video.
Chalk it up to prejudice and bias, if you like.
You want actual evidence, that what I think is true?
How is it possible, when it is just my opinion?
I also said I think he died because he was fat.
That could potentially be true. We shall have to see.
Clearly I can't provide evidence for a dead mans intent, can I?

I hadn't considered the point that he could have only been there for less than 30 minutes. Given that, my assumptions that he was there to cause trouble are less credible.
But, I have looked at the footage many times, and - like I keep saying - to me it does look rather strange one person is in contact with the police and nobody else is.
I've put that down to him being obstinate and him being a nuisance, regardless of any intoxication.
I'm not treating it as a fact. It is just my opinion.
Like you say, it is plausible.

Fair enough.

 

There was something in the Telegraph attributing excessive internal bleeding to his diseased internal organs because he was a severe alcoholic. That seems plausible. Being knocked over a few times, even pretty violently, is not enough to kill a normal healthy person. His condition may have contributed to his death, but while this helps to explain it, it certainly doesn't excuse it. The officer's actions were way out of line, as were those of his colleagues in failing to stop him at the time and report him afterwards. I hope the officer is dishonourably discharged and tried for manslaughter, and I hope there is an independent and thorough investigation into the police's attitudes and tactics in policing demonstrations.

That interpretation is becoming less and less credible the more information comes out. This seems to be exactly the kind of assumption made by the police at the time - he's a demonstrator, he's there causing trouble, he deserves a little whack. Totally unacceptable and horrendously biased assumptions to make.

 

No argument there.

Agh, how do you know he wasn't reported afterwards?

So, you are presuming this guys guilt before the official investigation is over. Shame on you.

I think this is occuring as we speak...or very soon.

With hindsight you can say that.

I never thought he was a protestor.
I have no idea if the police thought that, either.
Are you projecting your feelings onto others?

 

It seems fairly clear at this point from published information that the Metropolitan police only began taking action in response to the IPCC getting involved, which was on 8th April, long after the incident itself and directly following the video and news story breaking. The officer was only suspended at this point and the investigation begun. It would seem this was the first point at which the Met was aware of the incident, when the officers themselves came forward. For someone who has been studying this case so thoroughly I thought you would have known that. Perhaps you were too busy feeling all scandalised by the lefties, Matt.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-death-police-officer-suspended

I'm sorry? You surely understand the difference between being tried for something and being found guilty of something? There is clearly a case to answer and the guy was videotaped using excessive and unprovoked force, which is why the officer has been suspended. I hope the manslaughter case gets to trial. It's up to the courts to decide on his guilt.

 

It might be me , but you have been a little vague.

"Taking action" what action are you talking about? The officer or the actual incident, itself?
If you are talking about the incident itself, the Met Police where on it from the very begining, obviously.
They handed it over to the IPCC on the 6th, when it was publicly aknowledged Mr Tomlinson had contact with the police.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8002022.stm
I think it was even suggested police were involved, on the 5th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7984234.stm

That info has been published, yes.
Information for the previous 4-5 days is not in the public domain, yet.
If no other officers said anything, then nobody (officially) has actually stated that...so we don't know.

What seems odd is the footage was not released earlier, but 6 days later.
It is seems negligent of the person who took it.
If he went to the media first...how stupid is that?
But, to be fair, I think the actual chain of events will not be known for a while.

Are you suggesting the Met police didn't know an officer was in contact with Mr Tomlinson's, before the 8th? (ragardless of who told them).

I have no gripe with the "lefties". Why would I ?

Or innocence.

 

Four officers involved in the final contact before the man's death made themselves known to their superiors only following the publication of the story and video, one was suspended after that.

Potentially he might have been reported earlier but no action taken, this however seems somewhat unlikely. We can effectively discount it since we have zero evidence to think it might have happened, and all the indications are that the officer was no under investigation and was still on active duty until his suspension on the 9th. Otherwise why would he have "made himself known"?

It seems perfectly clear that this specific incident was only taken seriously within the Met once the matter became public and the IPCC got involved.

 

Lol - my assumptions are seemingly dismissed and yours are pretty much said as fact. You certainly have a few double standards...no offence.

Your prejudices are coming out now.
Also, nice forceful language, but no evidence.
And we do need evidence, don't we?
If only I could be so bold.

Btw, thanks for answering my questions...and aknowledging you got a date wrong. Appreciated.

 

Not correct, you've made a rather wild conjecture that the officer "might" have been reported and investigated internally within the Met before he is even said to have made himself known to his superiors as the person involved. You've made this conjecture with zero evidence, and against all the evidence we do have. Consequently I will dismiss that conjecture until there is a solitary scrap of evidence for it. The assumption of mine you're talking about is I think my dismissal of this conjecture for which there is no evidence? What have I said is fact? The fact that we have no evidence for your guess? The fact that the reported evidence suggests the contrary? Where is the problem here?

This seems to be moving towards namecalling, would you like to engage with the content of what I've said or are you just happy to make these implied slurs?

What questions? There seemed to be nothing particularly interesting for me to answer. If there's any query you'd like me to address please do bring it up. If it's important to you, I probably did get the date of the IPCC's initial involvement wrong, this is a rather trivial detail, something which I didn't feel the need to check since it's not relevant to any of the points being made here. The relevant point was the appearance of the video, the passing of the dossier of evidence to the IPCC and the subsequent suspension of the officer involved.

 

New footage has been published showing the moments before the incident and how seriously Tomlinson hit the ground after being pushed by a police officer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/22/new-ian-tomlinson-g20-video

 

It is conjecture, yes. "rather wild conjecture", not really.
His suspension came after the video release, yes. He could have been reported and an investigation started before the videos release, because:

( Thursday, 9 April 2009 ) Met Spokesperson: "A total of four officers, inclusive of this officer, have now come forward with potentially relevant information in relation to the investigation into the death of Mr Tomlinson."

(what dates did the others come forward?)

02 April 2009:
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has received a referral from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and City of London Police in relation to an incident in the vicinity of the G20 protests, where a man was found collapsed.

(why would the IPCC be involved if they didn't think an officer was involved?)

07 April 2009
The IPCC has been made aware of the footage broadcast on a national newspaper's website.
We are now attempting to recover this evidence. We will be assessing this along with the other statements and photographs that have already been submitted.

Neither the IPCC or the Met have given enough information regarding when they knew an officer was involved. But, I still do think they knew before the video was released. That could have provoked his suspension, but it didn't provoke the investigation by either the Met or the IPCC.

I was a tad flippant. I'll apologise for its flippancy. No slurs intented. You just came across as authorative with out any real evidence.
Where is the evidence for: " incident was only taken seriously within the Met once the matter became public and the IPCC got involved."

I was also talking about whores, pirates and South American drug dealers, so my mind was not focused enough, coming up to 7pm (or was it 6pm?...mmm)

I re-read what was written. It became more logical that time. I was also talking about whores, pirates and South American drug dealers, so my mind was not focused enough. So no questions.

 

A metropolitan police officer has been charged with assault after being filmed beating a female protestor the day after the death of Tomlinson...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/g20-police-officer-assault

 

Ian Tomlinson was "unlawfully killed"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13268633