What a pity the Yeomanry at Peterloo were so comparatively unsophisticated.

Also of interest:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/04/protests_at_the_g20_summit.html#photo11

His clothes seem remarkably wear-free (recently bought?).

Thanks for raising the profile of this case Craig. It did appear very odd at the time that during the demonstrations the ‘vandals’ who were smashing buildings were surrounded by tens of television crews and photographers. Surely the one or two people filmed smashing the buildings could have been apprehended at the time. But no, it was filmed for the entertainment of the public. How sad, how very sad. I’d very much recommend people watching Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe (usually on BBC4 and available on the BBC iPlayer) which covers a number of the issues raised on this blog.

Actually, anticant, wasn’t most of the problem at Peterloo caused by the deployment of the regular 15th Hussars rather than the locally raised yeomanry?

Doesn’t this imply a worrying possibility – locally raised units are reluctant to take extreme action against crowds that might contain mates and relatives, so bring in outsiders.

Exit the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and enter the Royal Regiment of Scotland: or, worse, some European unit.

Any credibility you might have disappears with calling this incident a “brutal murder”.

Jess,

What was it then?

Lets see, IF this guy gets investigated, paid holiday during investigation, eventually found innocent of any “wrongdoing”? Am I right?

I was involved in many voluntary sector 1970′s / 1980′s justice campaigns and also did 8 years police accountabilty work in one of the London labour councils before Newt Labour came on stream when I very soon opted out rather than for reaction. Anyway my understanding was (tho I have forgotten some of the specifics) that police had specifically regulated against using dogs for public order operations – I have contacted Duncan Campbell at The Guardian and it would be very useful if he could clarify this issue too. We shall see. In my mind I am sure an anti dog regulation was brought in.

I was involved in many voluntary sector 1970′s / 1980′s justice campaigns and also did 8 years police accountabilty work in one of the London labour councils before Newt Labour came on stream when I very soon opted out rather than for reaction. Anyway my understanding was (tho I have forgotten some of the specifics) that police had specifically regulated against using dogs for public order operations – I have contacted Duncan Campbell at The Guardian and it would be very useful if he could clarify this issue too. We shall see. In my mind I am sure an anti dog regulation was brought in.

Ian: Picture 31 at the Boston Big Picture link in Paul Jakma’s comment above shows police alsatians in action, so their use for public order work must be continuing.

What was it then?

We don’t know if a bit of pushing from the police had anything to do with his heart attack as of yet, or if these late witnesses were even witnessing the right person. To declare it a Brutal Murder only adds to the impression this is being used as propaganda. This is not what his family want.

As with the Sir Michael Wright example, I am afraid thanks to New Labour I have no faith at all in government employed pathologists, coroners or police complaints commissions. And I think you would be shocked how many people have woken up to the same view.

The manipulation of a family in profound shock and grief is not difficult – as in the Kelly case. Not so easy when they are from another country, as in the De Menezes case.

Maybe some bigwigs thought that footage of a solitary RBS window being violently smashed might pacify some of the general public over the financial scandal. Furthermore, it could then be used as propaganda to clamp down on future dissent. One might also think the same of Goodwin’s windows. Just some thoughts…

Good updates Craig and I concur with many things you draw attention to; I’m not convinced by the conspiratorial take on the police photographer in the RBS building – frankly, looking at it suggests that it was taken after the event and the ‘window-smashers’ had moved on. Not pre-positioning then but certainly another example of the authorities passion for accumulating and gathering all manner of filmed evidence.

kc

I don’t think the photo gives evidence either way. It came with a claim that it was contemporaneous, but no photographic way of checking that out at the minute. Presumably other photos may emerge that make the timing plain.

“There is added poignancy in the fact that Mr Tomlinson wasn’t a demonstrator at all,”

I take issue with that, actually. Whoever would have died in such a way, as is alleged, the death would have been of an innocent person and would have had just as much poignancy.

I say that knowing full well the sentiment (an admirable one), but we have to be careful, experience has taught that if Mr Tomlinson ever so much as filched a loaf of bread, we’ll be seeing such evidence turn up in the newspapers very soon, in just the same way the police supplied Pictorial Bulsara Weirdness (weird=guilty) and hearsay to the tabloids or a pack of lies about Carlos de Menezes (including making him culpable by dint of his immigration status – a true Daily Mail gambit). The smokescreen of any past indiscretions must not be made available to apologists for the ‘rule of law’ (ie: impunity for the attack dogs of the powerful)

The truth of this will never be known. The BBC report: “Officers from the City of London Police will carry out the investigation on behalf of the watchdog.”

I’m speechless. I can only think: “You couldn’t make it up.”

Further to my comment above, and Craig’s comment about family manipulation, he’s dead right. It may sound brutal, but so-called ‘Family liaison units’ will ‘butter-up’ his family and persuade them ‘not to make a fuss’, to ‘grieve quietly’.

My son is a Met Police constable – he doesn’t say much, but I can read what’s happening from his silences.

@Joseph at April 6, 2009 12:50 PM

Yes I am sure dogs are being used from what I had read but I have raised my point simply because my memory is that police regulations were brought in to stop their use and I presume they must have been rescinded – they ought NOT to be used and I wish the historical stuff could be revisited and adequately discussed – I am not able to do it or I would. I have heard no more from Duncan Campbell.

Look, anything is possible. Remember tanks at Heathrow? News management is the name of the game. But I think that some ‘public servants’ are getting a little uneasy.

A change of Government will lead to scores being settled, and the public is increasingly aware that these devious and manipulative politicians have, for years, been supported by equally devious and manipulative civil and public servants. It’s going to be interesting watching the despicable apparatchiks during the next few months.

However, given the outcome of innumerable previous ‘investigations’ by such bodies as the IPCC it’s clear that no police officer will face disciplinary action, let alone a court, as a result of this death.

Surely the accusation of brutal blows to the head can be proved or disproved by the post mortem examination of the body. Are steps being taken to have an independent postmortem made, or have the official one witnessed/

Craig,

Strategist is right. Aren’t post mortems made public? Shouldn’t we be able to see them?

Do you know about this?

best,

Stephen

Re: post mortem

There is a gloss

“A post mortem examination carried out by a Home Office pathologist revealed Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack.”

&

“… a City of London Police spokesman said Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes. He said: “He suffered a sudden heart attack while on his way home from work.”

A heart attack is a natural cause of death, so that statement, considered alone, is not a denial of anything, simply an attempt to end the discussion. However, where is mention of the head injury/ies that would be present if the eyewitness accounts are accurate?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Ian-Tomlinson-Who-Died-From-Heart-Attack-In-G20-London-Protests-Was-Pushed-Back-By-Police-Earlier/Article/200904115256879?f=rss

I don’t to be honest think that the photo offers any kind of evidence that there was a photographer already stationed inside the RBS, but I do believe that the protestors who attacked the bank fell into a trap http://400words.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/rbs-rant/.

Turns out he was drunk, by the way, according to the autopsy, and there is no CCTV footage of him getting beaten or pushed by anybody. It’s this one witness’ word against the tonns of witnesses who saw nothing, and there is no way to assess at this stage whether she has the right person in mind, or if this had anything to do with his heart attack. No bruises or marks were found on the body.

I’m new to this blog. Apologize for asking this though, but to OP…

Do you know if this can be true;

http://www.bluestickers.info/ringtones.php ?

it came off http://ringtonecarrier.com

Thanks

Jess,

How do you know no bruise marks were found on the body? Are you simply saying that the reports of the post mortem do not mention bruises, or do you have a more detailed access to the post mortem report? It’s not clear that any journalist has actually seen it. I’ve emailed Paul Lewis twice on this question and despite replying he refuses to answer this question. Have you actually seen a report that specifically states that the post mortem mentioned nothing about bruises?

Stephen

On the question of the mystery photographer inside the building, I have the answer.

“i was right at the front line in threadneedle street and say the first window pop behind the main door,thats how police were inside rbs when the windows on the side were smashed for the photo op.”

http://400words.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/rbs-rant/#comment-6

There are degrees of drunk – none of which cause heart attacks.

That reminds me of the line the government deployed at the inquest, that Jean Charles De Menezes was shot in the head because at some time in the past 72 hours he may have taken cocaine.

As for the lack of CCTV footage, again you will recall that miraculously all the CCTV cameras had stopped working in the De Menezes case.

Stephen

Thanks for that valuable link to evidence that the police photographers were indeed pre-positioned at RBS

It is interesting to note just how similar was the official reaction to Tomlinson’s death to that of 15 year old Alexis Grigoropoulos, shot by police in Athens last December. In both cases the police gave out an account that was almost entirely at odds with eye witness accounts and later evidence. Yet much of the mainstream media choose to accept the official accounts at face value even though those present told a different story.

Also in both cases video footage came out that quickly disproved the version given by officers involved.

My take on the vid of police pushing the non-protester guy.

He was already dazed and confused before they pushed him, so the fall does not look to have anything to do with his death. He talked with the police right afterward. It’s questionable whether it was right of the officer to push him from behind, however Tomlinson did look to be uncooperative to their calls to clear the street. His hands cushioned his fall so no blow to the head seemed to occur. The alcohol confirmed to be in his system is what probably gave him the heart attack.

A sad and peculiar incident. No other person who came into contact with the police that day suffered any hospitalising injury – just bruises and scrapes – so it is very bizarre and unfortunate that someone collapses of a heart attack like this.

Speaking of which, there was one of those untrendy protests today about Sri lanka where big clashes with the police occurred. Nobody was hurt.

This death is a complete freak occurance.

Being a man of honour and truth, I am sure Mr Murray will withdraw his claim that a murder took place, now that no evidence has emerged to support this hasty conclusion.

The poor man collapsed and died 3 minutes after this second unprovoked attack – and on the video you can see clearly that he could not take his hands out of his pockets in time to save his head from thumping onto the concrete. This has really alarmed a lot of people. Sad to say, events with Brazilians or black people or in far-off Uzbekistan (or even Strasbourg) don’t bring it home as much as this old fellah getting bundled over.

the video you can see clearly that he could not take his hands out of his pockets in time to save his head from thumping onto the concrete.

The video does not show this, of course. In slow motion his hands were used to cushion his fall. No impact on the head was found in the autopsy.

I think Newsnight are running with this story tonight on BBC2 – watch live or on iPlayer (about halfway through)…

Is “Jess”:

a) Sir Paul Stephenson, or

b) Inspector Knacker, or

c) Jack Straw?

I can’t believe this individual has the audacity to come on here again, after the video of the assault on Mr Tomlinson has been released, and call for Craig Murray to “withdraw his claim”.

Jess, perhaps adjust the black face mask, lift your riot helmet visor, move your shield out of the way and your view of that video may become clearer.

For those who would rather hide such stories away from the public, I’m sure they’d be delighted to know it is now the ‘most popular story’ on the BBC website.

Jess = Apologist

Craig’s blog is clearly being targeted by a number of people who are clearly unrepresentative of the people at large. The question has to be asked why such people, with views like Jess, would be here to read Craig’s blog, as why would such credulous individuals be interested in anything that proffered a different version of events to that handed out by the authorities.

Also, one minor semantic point – “the official account” – really, the media should report this as “the police account”, as the double meaning of “official” maintains an unwelcome relation with “truth”, a commodity that has so far eluded the Met in its statements on Mr Tomlinson.

Jess’s comment here is strikingly similar to one offered by Jo here: http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1239133467.html

Jo attributes it to an email she received from the MediaLensWatch guy, namely, the author of http://medialenswatch.blogspot.com/ , who was banned some time ago from posting on medialens message board. I think his name is Mike Clark

Jess is a regular on Harry’s Place. Tomlinson was clearly the victim of a completely unprovoked attack with a baton from behind when he was doing nothing wrong. To claim that alcohol caused his heart attack – rather than being hit with a baton by a policeman – is at odds with medical science.

I just can’t understand the evolution of the Harry’s Place people, don’t they even call themselves leftists while worshipping the authorities? Unclassifiable, except perhaps, as insane facilitators of the destruction of all liberty. I just can’t work out what they think they’ll gain from such subservient behaviour, if they think that their handlers have any respect or feel they owe them anything, they will learn the hard way, that betraying others doesn’t secure anything but a postponement of the same treatment you’ve enjoyed watching being meted out.

Wowee, you get to die last.

Craig,

What is the deal with postmortems? Aren’t they carried out by pathologists? I remember in December 1982, when the police were reported as shooting at a car after it had driven through a road block, which car was later found in a ditch with all three passengers dead. I wasn’t sure what to think. It was the coroner’s report which revealed all. I read it on the inside of some newspaper and it changed my life. Death from gunshot wounds to the front of the head. Gunpowder residue on the skin consistent with shooting at point blank range. This is how I learned and became finally convinced that the police were indeed shooting people: the notorious “shoot to kill” police.

My point is, something is wrong here, even more than there. The post mortem, where do we find the report? The Guardian first reported that the police said the postmortem said heart attack, then on Monday 6 April, p9, went so far as “His death was attributed by a postmortem to natural causes”, but then backed away again from that again. I frankly doubt they ever saw it.

So what is the deal? Can’t we trust postmortems, or is it the police we can’t trust to tell us what’s in them. THE ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT IS TO GO AND LOOK AT THE REPORT. Please, does anyone here know where it can be found? Aren’t these things public? If they are not, what is the point in having them? Why shouldn’t they be? Are they likely to be useful to terrorists? What hospital was he taken to? Would hospitals have postmortems. What are the family told? Surely there must be a public openly available copy of this thing. I want to see it with my own eyes even if I have to travel to London to do so? Who can I call? Where can I go?

I’ve emailed Paul Lewis (Guardian) twice to ask him whether he has seen it. His silence is ominous. I suspect he knows that quoted line above was lousy journalism, but he doesn’t want to have to issue a correction. All the same, he was the one doing most of the good work in the Guardian, without whom we wouldn’t even have this video.

In conclusion, then, given your worldly expertise, please tell me where I should start looking for this postmortem. Sorry for the length.

Best Wishes,

Stephen

^ Stephen,

Please be aware that under measures proposed by the guberment (initially in the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008, but now within the proposals for Corners Reform), the Secretary of State would have the right to hold ‘secret inquests’ under the direction of specially selected Coroners, for the investigation of contentious deaths (i.e. where ‘state agents’ are involved).

More info here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/d3hvct

& comment discussion on the measures, here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/33qqdo

Jess

on this video at 24 seconds…

http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=SYM3KOByTDw&fmt=18

…it clearly shows his hands were ‘stuck’ beneath his body as his rises from the floor.

They started in an outstretched position (at 22 seconds)and indicate – based on the time it takes him to rise – that he couldn’t have protected his head in time.

He falls forward as well as down, his rear is higher than his head and sholders when initially on the ground (23 seconds), which gives evidence his head probably had contact with the ground.

Jess

on this video at 24 seconds…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYM3KOByTDw&fmt=18

…it clearly shows his hands were ‘stuck’ beneath his body as his rises from the floor.

They started in an outstretched position (at 22 seconds)and indicate – based on the time it takes him to rise – that he couldn’t have protected his head in time.

He falls forward as well as down, his rear is higher than his head and sholders when initially on the ground (23 seconds), which gives evidence his head probably had contact with the ground.

whoops missed out the ‘m’ of’com in the youtube address.

here it is below…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYM3KOByTDw&fmt=18

Brutal bullies employed for their proficiency in battering will never meet justice.

“Speaking of which, there was one of those untrendy protests today about Sri lanka where big clashes with the police occurred. Nobody was hurt.”

Just for Jess/Jo’s information, a three year old suffered a broken leg at the Tamil protests.

*IMPORTANT*

The Guardian is running a story claiming that the pathologist who said Tomlinson died of natural causes had already been disciplined for assigning death by natural causes to a another murder victim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson

I’m new to this blog. Apologize for asking this though, but to OP…

Do you know if this can be true;

http://www.bluestickers.info/ringtones.php ?

it came off http://ringtonecarrier.com

Thanks

Could it be possible that these violent protesters were placed there deliberately by either the police or others with motives to discredit the protesters and justify ott policing? That they are on someone's payroll for doing what they are doing.