... and Red Bull gives piiigs wiiings

"Lie 1 - There was no police contact with Mr Tomlinson"

No it is true that there was no police contact with Tomlinson where he collapsed. Witnesses confirm this. Without the other evidence this was all they had to go on. No lying.

"Lie 2 Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack"

It wasn't a lie, of course. The second coroner did confirm Tomlinson had heart decease and bad organs. It's a matter of judgement.

"Lie 3 Protestors rained missiles at police rescuing and treating Mr Tomlinson"

This has been confirmed by video tape and witnesses to be true - at least one bottle was thrown.

"Lie 4 There were no CCTV cameras covering the assault on Mr Tomlinson"

There is no evidence this was a lie by the head of the IPCC. They were still going through all the evidence. What's the point in lying about something like that if it was going to come out?

"Lie 5 There were CCTV cameras, but they were not working"

see above.

But I agree that it does look like you've won the lottery on this case. They're saying Tomlinson may have had a huge aneurism in his gut from years of bad living. Experts say it was going to go sometime soon anyway, but you've now got a way to link his death with the shove, although its still a matter of opinion.

My thoughts are with the police officer involved at this time. He mistook a rambling drunk for an awkward protester and in a freak accident the man died, and now his life is ruined. A very and bizarre case.

Is Jess really?

a) Derek Draper

b) Damian McBride

c) Jacqui Smith

Oh Jessy, you are a treat. Shouldn't you be out in our shopping centres looking for suspicious activity? Why waste time here with freaks like us when you can be hunting terrorists? It's hardly productive use of your valuable time. I'd think you had more important things to get on with.

Now consider the hypocrisy....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1170404/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Why-Left-silent-riot-squads-inflicted-terrible-injuries-peaceful-country-folk-2004.html

'Is Jess really?

a) Derek Draper

b) Damian McBride

c) Jacqui Smith'

Or d) Jacqui Smith's gimp.

I was about to post a comment along the lines of "where's Jess now", but it seems s/he has the brass neck to keep haunting us.
And as for "winning the lottery", am I the only one here who thinks that's a rather repugnant way of admitting that Craig and others here were right?

I suggest ignoring Jess. If he isn't a Labour troll, then he has a very worrying mental condition and should seek help.

And Jess, should we not at least give the deceased the respect he deserves and call him Ian Tomlinson or Mr Tomlinson?

"It wasn't a lie, of course. The second coroner did confirm Tomlinson had heart decease and bad organs. It's a matter of judgement."

He could've had a cancerous tumour, too, but that wouldn't mean he died of cancer. Only in your world. If they'd bashed him on the head and he died of a seizure, you'd be citing epilepsy as cause of death.

"Lie 3 Protestors rained missiles at police rescuing and treating Mr Tomlinson"

"Lie 3 Protestors rained missiles at police rescuing and treating Mr Tomlinson"

"This has been confirmed by video tape and witnesses to be true - at least one bottle was thrown."

Hmm, so if one man falls off the top of a building, it would be quite accurate to report this as...

"It's raining men..."

(Hallelujah, it's raining men)

***

You are worse than these people, who are clearly trying to save their skins and are at least somewhat justified in doing all they can to evade scrutiny and frustrate justice, ie: escape from a rather nasty set of possibilities. I can't condone it, but I can understand it, as a totally misplaced loyalty to a member of an organisation.

You, Jess, on the other hand, assuming you're not a member of the Met, have absolutely no pressing reason to be here, talking out of your backside, and dissembling in front of an audience who can see you for the transparent apologist you are.

I hope to God that if anybody else gets an unmerited shove from a Met officer, that it's you, you could have no complaints. In fact, I can imagine you toadying to the last, giving a press conference, hairless, wheelchair bound, paralyses from the neck down, expressing your admiration for the Met and your sympathy for the officer concerned 'at this difficult time. If you think I have had it bad, imagine, he CRIED when he realised what he'd done to me and missed two days of duty. I hope to be able to meet him in person and express my admiration for him, as soon he feels emotionally ready..."

'Winning the lottery' was a term chosen deliberately. It's hardly a secret that you guys have been praying that you could link this death to the police officer in some way to suit your political agenda. I mean, just look at Murray's list of misleading lies thrown together.

It's still hardly the police officers fault that this man had an aneurysm from years of bad living and freakishly died - we all know that - but it appears your lucky number has come up nonetheless. This will be a goldmine of propaganda.

As the pictures in the article I linked to above shows, you're not against police brutality if it's against the right sort of people, so that has nothing to do with it. Just be happy that this officier's life - a family man - is now ruined.

In fact, if Jess is a Labour troll, he has a very worrying mental condition and should seek help.

Back on topic, there were eye-witness reports of an earlier assault by the police on Mr Tomlinson, and it was as a result of this that he appeared dazed and disoriented in the footage given to the Guardian. I wonder if we will hear more of this, or if these witnesses will be ignored in the absence of corroborating video evidence.

BBC news was so emphatically certain in its assertion that Tomlinson's death was from a heart attack that I at once suspected it wasn't. We have reached the Soviet situation, where in order to construe the output of the state-controlled broadcaster one has to invert it.

"I hope to God that if anybody else gets an unmerited shove from a Met officer, that it's you"

How do you know it hasn't already happened?

"Back on topic, there were eye-witness reports of an earlier assault by the police on Mr Tomlinson, and it was as a result of this that he appeared dazed and disoriented in the footage given to the Guardian."

Nonesense. There were pictures of him rambling about hours before. He was an alcholic. After the fall he was talking and walked off in a steady manner. We still don't have all the evidence if he really was only trying to go straight home.

"As the pictures in the article I linked to above shows, you're not against police brutality if it's against the right sort of people..."

Touche, Jess, that's an eloquent summation of your own hypocrisy.

"A Freak Accident" ? FFS!

All I can think to say is - Shut Up Jess!

You haven't got a F*****g clue what you're talking about.

Oh and you forgot to add - "Vote Labour".

"How do you know it hasn't already happened?"

Well, you're certainly exhibiting symptoms of a heavy fall. Perhaps a brain scan is in order.

Jessy, can I ask you a question?

"A Freak Accident" ? FFS!"

How many people have a large aneurysm in their stomach already? Anything could have set it off. One expert I have seen says he may not have been far away from death in any event.

How many years would you like the officer to spend in jail, away from his wife and children, for this shove? What number would make you the happiest?

Jess, maybe you can do the decent thing and step in and do his porridge for him.

Jess,

Where exactly are you looking? I have been googling and can see no evidence that the post mortem report said he had an aneurysm. Where do you get this from?

People do in fact walk round with aneurysms for decades, incidentally. You are still not allowed to hit people with batons if they are ill.

So, Jess, if the same officer was shown to have hit those posh folks you showed us in the Daily Mail, then...

Also, you forgot to say that he should be given a medal. We can well imagine him abandoning royal protocol and shoving over the Queen as a means of expressing his gratitude.

You'd be back on here, explaining how Her Majesty was 'dawdling along in a tiara' and besides, 'has had a good innings'...

I presume everyone saw this Guardian piece:

"Pathologist in Ian Tomlinson G20 death case was reprimanded over conduct"

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

Obviously, the first pathologist must've been in the pay of the Metropolitan police and the officer, who hit Tomlinson, one of the 'elite' force positioned within the normal police to beat up demonstrators.

What a country!

"I have been googling and can see no evidence that the post mortem report said he had an aneurysm. Where do you get this from?"

It was on both the BBC and Sky coverage of the news as it came out. It was very clear. They had experts on to talk about it. They said it was likely, left undiscovered as it probably would have done, that the he would have died from this aneurysm. Very interesting indeed that you say you cannot find this in any other the other reports. Rather gives the game away about how the media like to edit out information that might be mitigating. They want it as sexy as possible to get the biggest hit.

Jess
Absolutely correct. And, I know how you must feel....
I have been trying to defend the actions of Hitlers Gestapo for years, but no one listens to me either, 'sigh'.

Screwed the wording a bit there.

'They said it was likely, left undiscovered as it probably would have done, that the he would have died from this aneurysm.'
Ridiculous.
Obviously you do not understand what 'manslaugher' means.
As for the comment 'winning the lottery', I think you should crawl back into the troll hole you came out of.

Jess and his/her sparring partner(s) are here to trivialize any serious discussion on the fact that the Metropolitan police hired a pathologist to lie to cover up a murder/manslaughter of an innocent man in order not to deviate from their policy of beating up demonstrators.
It would be inconceivable that the security services would not be monitoring/disrupting this blog.

I am sorry, Jess. I have had BBC News and Sky on pretty solidly all day and I haven't heard anyone talk about aneurysm even as a theory, let alone say he had one. And I can't find it on either of their websites.

If Ian Tomlinson had been 2 years old on April 1st it is unlikely he would have been bashed about and tripped by the fuzz - indeed he would not have been likely to be anywhere near where he got done over - and of course Jess would probably argue that the police can't be blamed because IAN TOMLINSON was too old and in the wrong place on April 1st. So she's right - Tomlinson was born too soon and got to the City of London half a decade or so too soon And cops can't be blamed for that or for doing him over with an underlying health condition. Good on yer Jess you're a beaut.

"...Screwed the wording a bit there..."

How about......"Screwed the truth a bit there"

Bloody Labour apparatchik. Sod off back to LabourLost and give us peace.

I am not in the pay of the security services, so discount me from that insinuation over sparring partners and perhaps tamp down the scope of your paranoid vision. So far, (today) I think just Jess is here as an apologist, those taking issue with he/she/it appear genuine. Besides, it's having no effect, unless it's to draw statements to be read out in court against anybody who dissents from the view that police violence is always merited.

'Jess and his/her sparring partner(s) are here to trivialize any serious discussion on the fact that the Metropolitan police hired a pathologist to lie to cover up a murder/manslaughter of an innocent man in order not to deviate from their policy of beating up demonstrators.
It would be inconceivable that the security services would not be monitoring/disrupting this blog.'

I think it is just Jessy. Solution? Block the wally from this site.

'Jess and his/her sparring partner(s) are here to trivialize any serious discussion on the fact that the Metropolitan police hired a pathologist to lie to cover up a murder/manslaughter of an innocent man in order not to deviate from their policy of beating up demonstrators.
It would be inconceivable that the security services would not be monitoring/disrupting this blog.'

I think it is just Jessy. Solution? Block the wally from this site.

Well, personally I feel sorry for the authorities. They did their best to incite violence and feed stories to the press belittling the protesters.
Yet, the crowds behaved peacefully. Gandhi would've been proud. This is in sharp contrast to the actions of the state...
You can understand why these testosterone pumped, sadistic bullies get frustrated at not getting any action and lashing out at weak old men and small women.

Jess needs some support - if Tomlinson had been born only three or four years ago he would no doubt not have got repeatedly done over on April 1st and the cops can't be blamed for his being born fifty years or so too soon and done over with an underlying health condition. None of this can be blamed on the police - Tomlinson was born too soon period. Good on yer Jess you're a beaut.

Will this comment simply vanish without trace. Time will tell.

I'm getting increasingly puzzled about who Jess thinks he is doing any favours to with his repulsively callous personal attacks on the late Mr Tomlinson as "a rambling drunk with years of bad living" who, Jess insinuates, was responsible for his own death.

This surely doesn't help the police one iota. On the contrary, it simply emphasises their lack of judgement. They will be well aware, as is any lawyer, that the only legal issue here is whether unjustified force was used. The habits and health of the individual concerned are totally irrelevent - whether it was a shambling drunken dustman, a jovial duke or a teetotal upstanding Governor of the Bank of England does not in the least affect the issue of whether he was unlawfully struck by policemen. This can only be determined by a court in the light of all the available evidence.

I have no idea why Ian Cameron thinks his comment might disappear without trace. Do others disappear very often. Also, please let's not ban Jess. Ignoring him or her until something worth responding to is posted might be a better idea.
Since I responded earlier to this obvious troll I now recant as a sinner and vow not to do it again.

Ron:

Oh Great! Now I too have "guilt". :o)
OK, I promise not to respond to the Labour Troll.

Craig,

about the aneurysm. Okay you're right that it was not in the corners report, however an expert on sky news said an aneurysm was the most likely cause of sudden bleeding if the death was the result of the fall, because someone without one wouldn't have died from that.

I still believe it is most likely. This doctor talks about it in the Guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-haemorrhage-doctor

Also someone comments under a Guardian CiF post about the heart attack:

The first corner's verdict was not a heart attack, it was "blood in the abdomen from coronary artery disease".

Why does the Guardian and other sections of the press keep reporting this as a heart attack? It is not a heart attack.

Am I going mad or something? Hello? Am I the only one who actually reads this stuff?

Misreporting belittles and clouds the issue.

So does your harping on irrelevancies, as I've already pointed out. The issue is not what Tomlinson died of, but whether he was illegally assaulted by the police. If he was, the subsequent death could be murder or manslaughter; if he was not, it would be misadventure.

Not relevant to you, no. Of course it is relevant what he died of.

Ok, I reckon the spooks have deemed that on every notable blog or website they will have one or two of their 'dogsbody agents' spouting crap. They probably think 'hmm, we can't let this talk go unchallenged. What if unconverted folk see this talk going unchallenged? They might be converted and we have to try and prevent that.' I've seen it so many times now it's unreal. Craig, he is a complete prick. I 'beseech you' to remove his posts and block him now and in any future appearances he or his ilk make from diffent IP's, identities etc.. Just make some New Labour type statement justifying your actions on your blog. Don't fall into the puerile trap where he says 'oh, you are silencing me and acting like a dictator blah, blah, blah.' Everyone here knows he is a complete prick. Do the 'last thing' he wants and be rid of him. Please.

How many years would you like the officer to spend in jail

As many as the Police and CPS would have sought and got for me if I, as an ordinary citizen, had decided Ian Tomlinson was in my way, pushed him in a manner which led to him falling over, and thereby caused his death.

Ask yourself this: If half a dozen Police officers had seen not one of their colleagues but rather one of the protestors push Tomlinson, would they have waited until video footage of the incident emerged before reporting this? Or would they have made reports as soon as they saw the pictures of Tomlinson on every TV news bulletin and in every newspaper? And once a suspect was identified, would the Police have waited this long before interviewing him under caution if he wasn't a fellow officer?

That doesn't really make sense. The police were doing a job trying to control the streets. It's totally different to just going up to some randomn person and shoving them. The officer was trying to clear that road, on orders, and mistook this rambling drunk for an awkward protester who wouldn't clear at the way fast enough, and overreacted. This doesn't appear to be the first time it happened either. I don't know if you have dealt with drunks before, but their slow and incoherent manner can be very frustrating.

Jess wrote:"I don't know if you have dealt with drunks before, but their slow and incoherent manner can be very frustrating."

Any similarity with trolls is purely coincidental.

By the way, did you folks see Charlie Brookers 'Newswipe', it should still be on the BBC iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jwcb3/Newswipe_Episode_4/

He gave a fairly clear picture of how the media were forcing the view that the overtly peaceful protests were other than.

so you think he was walking along minding his own business ? then why was he walking like his feet were tied together ? he was taking the piss and apparently had done so earlier as well. It wasnt right to maybe shove him , they should have lifted him though for being a public nuisance. He was playing to the crowd and its cost him his life . You stay sitting in your cozy office and judge whats going on outside you numpty Murray !

"Also someone comments under a Guardian CiF post about the heart attack:"

Can you give the url for that particular CiF post?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/17/tomlinson-postmortem-g20-police

"He was playing to the crowd and its cost him his life ."

Ladies and gentlemen, Tweedledum has entered the building.

Thanks, Jess. Right, so that comment is following Friday's press reports which quoted the Coroner's Court as saying that the first pathologist concluded that the cause of death was "coronary artery disease". The Coroner's statement is at the end of this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-g20-protest-coroner

That statement doesn't actually link the abdominal bleeding to the heart disease, so I think the commenter may be reading that link in himself (based on the second pathologist giving the abdominal bleeding as the cause of death, perhaps). Coronary artery disease can indeed cause a heart attack. But if that's what the first pathologist concluded, it seems strange to me that the statement by the Coroner's Court doesn't mention it.

This comment on CiF has led me to wonder what exactly went on. Because the answer to that question, "why does the media keep describing it as a heart attack", is that journalists are simply repeating the line given to them by the Police and the IPCC. These are, after all, their only sources. Both the Police (on 3rd April) and the IPCC (on 6th April) stated categorically that the first post-mortem had found that the cause of death was "a heart attack", and continued to make that claim at least until the second post-mortem was conducted.

From searching on Google, the phrase "coronary artery disease" has only been used to describe the first pathologist's findings during the last 12 hours, starting with the Guardian article I linked to above. Before that, and going back to the 3rd of April, the cause of death is universally described as "heart attack", following the relevant Police and IPCC statements. Prior to the first post-mortem, the media was saying "suspected heart attack" (again, following a Police statement).

So, if the first pathologist didn't attribute the cause of death to a heart attack, why did both the Police and the IPCC falsely claim that he had? And if he did, why is this conclusion now being down-played in light of the second post-mortem?

Jess's notion of 'extenuating circumstances' resembles the accused who indignantly protested "Yes, I did hit her on the head with a brick and strangle her, but I NEVER interfered with her!"

So what is the betting that it will emerge that Mr Tomlinson was assaulted by several officers during his journey home making it impossible to tell who delivered the fatal blow so all will be exonerated.

Jess I have tried to stay away from responding to you.... I really have... but

You are a heartless and deeply sad individual. Where the hell is your empathy with this poor man or his family? Personally I think that the police treatment of the countryside alliance was a disgrace... as was there behaviour on April 1st. I don't draw a distinction.

Police brutality is police brutality however you slice it. In this case a man died during an absolutely disgraceful display of police thuggery and due process must be served.

Please take a moment to have a long hard look at yourself. If you are a paid troll it might persuade you to seek rather more moral employment and if you're not then perhaps you could seek some help.

How times change.

Only 15 to 20 yeasr ago, the Left viewed themselves as the people's conscience. They were in the vanguard of attacking the police for their brutality. 'An arm of the State'.

And, yet, after 12 years of misrule by the 'consienece' of society, just listen to the likes of Jess. The roles have reversed. The Labour consience is now the enemy of the people.

And the likes of Jess are simply either blind or too stupid to see it.

oh its so easy to sit here and judge eh ? how many of us , including you lot of lefties who probably havent got a job between you , would want to be verbally abused all day and be able to turn the other cheek ? so he wasnt just a newsagent on his way home then ? he had a few pints first had he ? as i said he was a WUM and as terrible as the consequences were he was partly to blame .I suggest if you wanna see Police brutality you should look at Thailand etc Our Police do an exceptional job 99.9% of the time. They should have water cannons at their disposal .

99.9% is horeshit. It's a damn hard job and I personally know 4 coppers who are very decent individuals. However, you are very deluded to think that number do an 'exceptional job'. There was no excuse for what happened. They should have just nicked him if they thought they had just cause. You seem to be drunkenly wandering this blog. Now Colin, muck off you prick. And take your siblings 'The Jessy' and Peter with you. If you aren't all one and the same that is. If you don't we might have to water cannon you.

How about you actually WAKE UP? It is possible i'm sure. Do your family actually know what you are up to? The crap you spout? You got the balls to look them in the eyes? You sicko.

If you view all the comments above you'll see that it's Jess who determines the topic. In doing this, far more important issues such as whether the Met paid off the pathologist are neglected. Also I would think quite a few commentator would be put off contributing to the discussion by the stupidity of his/her remarks. He/she lowers the level. It's quite logical to assume that he/she is a spook or affiliated.

Twizzle, I think you're confusing New Labour with The Left.

Spot on Ruth. I did make a comment above but it was deeply satirical re JESS's shortsighted dismissive codswallop - it happens on many blogs that one or two nutters get taken too seriously and the discussion gets curtailed because of the above preoccupation.

@Leo - spot on. I have commented elsewhere on this blog that some critics (and I believe Twizzle means well) no longer can distinguish between Left and Right, based on a total analysis of a party's policies. Or, it's just a failure of logic: a slavish supporter of an opponent of a Right-wing party (Conservatives) is hardly part of the Left if the opponent themselves is part of the Right (New Labour).

As Craig has said in one of his earlier posts, New Labour's desperate authoritarianism and privatisation potentially puts them to the right of Tory policy. With the centre of political culture having shifted well to the right, the Tories need to rediscover the importance of civil liberties (real ones, like protesting without permission) - the alternative is that they move rightwards too, which won't bode well at all.