I'm afraid I feel your use of the term 'brutal murder' undermines your credibility. Jean Charles de Menezes was brutally murdered. Barbara Leach was brutally murdered. What I see in the video is an unprovoked common assault. The fact that he died then leads to the possibility of manslaughter. The incident is worthy of anger and indignation certainly, but doesn't look like a premeditated murder to me. (And I'm not a nu labour troll, just pragmatic and cynical.)

I think there will always be police willing to give protesters a bashing, although they had the velvet gloves out for the Tamils it seems - 5 arrests for a medium-sized illegal demo at westminster? Unheard of!

Instead of expecting whole system change, the best we can expect, in my opinion, is accountability by individual police officers. Will the police turn around and say "ok no more kettling and we'll be nice to all protesters unless it turns into a riot without our provocation"? Or would it be more achievable to suggest that the pushing policeman is brought to account?

I remember when I lived in Iraq I used to have thoughts and ideas about what is that makes police, secret police and military forces go against their own people?

In Iraq it was not so difficult to understand for the fact was simple do as the government with power orders OR you will yourself and/or your family end up threatened, tortured or killed.

But what about police, secret police etc in democratic countries as we have seen time and time again for example in the UK?

They do not have a gun pointed at their head if they do not do as the government wants.

How have this mentality we (gov, police etc) against them (ordinary people) come to be acted out in such brutality?

How far are they willing to go?

More footage of the attack here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYM3KOByTDw&fmt=18

Cynical Neil:
Stop being so cute with your legal jargonese. Craig is perfectly correct. This is an unprovoked, premeditated attack which resulted in this man dying. It's murder by any other name and you appear to be missing the point of Craig's central thesis regarding unaccountable police brutality and its relation to Government approved ('turn-a-blin-eye') torture. (Apologies Craig if I may be misquoting you. I should let you reply for yourself but am compelled to respond by my shock at how sanguine and cynical people can be about this man's death)
Whirlio: a 'system change' is called a revolution. It's happened before, you know. If the current shambles the world is in doesn't make you passionate for a change in the status quo, then nothing will.
Regarding cctv Craig - I think it's marvellous how technology that at first is deployed by the powers that be has now become democratised (mobile phones with video facility) and is used to highlight their abuses of power. The only downside is that the authorities know this and will be making the neccessary adjustments in policy.

These demonstrations of control by force that New Labour indulges in have got to end. There was no economic or financial 'meltdown' reason for these massive regime demonstrations throughout central London. Now they are imprisoning us and beating us and killing us on our own streets to show that only their regime can demonstrate - no-one else.

How can anyone go on supporting what the Labour party has become?

We are fortunate that the American visitor took the film of the police in the first place. If Jacqui Smith had her way, then no one could film the police.

Nadia,

Have a look at "Stanley Milgram" on wikipedia; it will expose the fatalism of obedience toward authority, inherent in the majority of 'civilised' people.

We may all do ourselves a great service, if we understood and nurtured that which stops us from forming into fascists, because the natural condition of the human race, suggested by Milgram's research, is that of heartless collectivism, of fascist compliance.

The police have taken guidance from the courts that a malicious threat made a member of the public in the heat of the moment can constitute an assault as much as hitting someone. But they frequently physically assault innocent members of the public, without listening to their explanations.

Hazel Blears has decided that merely expressing anger at what happened in Gaza is unacceptable and the BBC said that feeling pity for the people of Gaza was not a cause they could support. Nevertheless, by and large the public still say: Blair didn't have any choice about going to Iraq. The Home Secretary's private life is her own concern. It's a global recession.

Not so. As soon as Blair said the meaning of democracy is that an elected government does not have to consult public opinion, - you delegated all authority to us,- we were doomed. Consultation and debate enables governments to get things right, utilising the experience of people who know more about things than them.

No one would be protesting or complaining about our present problems if they had been the result of decisions made by government after the traditional consultation with and respect for the public and their representatives in parliament. We saw it all coming but Blair's faulty construct of democracy means government alone is to blame.

Did anyone see the guy walking away from the police and the policeman rushing behind him and sending him flying into the air without any reason?

I have collected evidence also of Scottish police going after SNP Bloggers and offering to share info with the Nationalist Alliance(combat 18 bnp faction) Membership! It makes quite a read!It even leads back to one of their own websites!

Look it is obvious the guy had a dicky ticker. If one of the G20 "demonstrators" had jumped out in a gimp mask and shouted "boo!" the same outcome would have happened.

But seriously, the police are out of control and not fit for purpose. My recent experiences with the police reveal to me that they are not fit for purpose, that they have no real interest in preventing crime and do their best to protect the interests of the criminals in our society.

The interesting thing is that the police feel that they can act this way and get away with it. Obviously this kind of behaviour is the norm for them, but this time they got caught because of the fatality.

This is worse than the Menezes case because this was completely unprovoked and random. While the Menezes case was terrible and needn't have happened, if one looks objectively at the case one can see how the heightened security of the days after the terrorist atrocities and the complete breakdown of communication can be responsible for such a terrible thing. Not excusable, of course.

My burning memory of the Menezes case was watching the live BBC News coverage from outside Stockwell and one seemingly "normal" looking fellow, a witness, told how the victim ran down the stairs, was wearing a big coat, and refused to comply with the officers. Obviously, this guy was a stooge. Someone should try and find that footage - it would make interesting viewing again, but I reckon it might have "disappeared".

The video footage will help the family make a case. In my opinion I would say the officer who barged the victim did so illegally and as such is open to prosecution, that was clearly not 'reasonable force' The attack no doubt was a contributory factor in the death of the victim, however, I wouldn't hold my breath that justice will be done. For what it's worth I think the term is involuntary manslaughter rather than murder.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but surely we don't need CCTV footage of the assault if a proper postmortem examination has been made. A truncheon blow to the head would be plain to an expert?

So, my questions are:

Where is the body now?
Who is in charge of it now?
Who conducted the postmortem examination?
Where is that person's report now?
Will there be a coroner's inquest? When will it be held, were will it be held?

It's remarkable how rarely an independent public inquiry is called on anything these days. Yet who can rely on the City of London Police conducting a fair inquiry for the IPCC, when they have already compromised themselves with the statements they have already made?

How do we know he didn't die from the same cause as Natasha Richardson. From Wikipedia:

"The injury was followed by a lucid interval, when Richardson seemed to be fine and was able to talk and act appropriately...An autopsy conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March revealed the cause of death was an 'epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head'".

Yes, it's absolutely imperative that the body is properly cared for, fully and independently examined and everything published. Consequently, the police will be trying to prevent any of that happening. Stephen above (1:32pm) is right about delayed effects of head injury, which is why any sort of concussion however 'trivial', is taken absolutely seriously by A&E medics. I know, I've had a few (a life of racing and riding motorbikes, I'm afraid) and if the medic, through careful questioning, has the slightest suspicion that you lost consciousness for just a single second, you will not be allowed back on your feet for quite a while. This is almost certainly what happened to Ian Tomlinson but it won't be revealed by any videos, only by a thorough and independant post mortem. And I think we, and his family, will find it utterly impossible to ensure one takes place under what passes for 'freedom' in our country now. In fact, if his body has already been examined once, it is probably already too late for a proper examination to now take place.

Craig: "We have reached the stage in the UK
where we need a revolutionary change."

YES. We need massive change. Agreed.

I wasn't sure what you were saying about Obama the other day, Craig. But we agree on massive change. And that is more than enough agreement for now, and for the situation we are all in.

Nadia above asks how it is that the British police are now so willing to exercise violence against ordinary people in the street. It's simple, they are brutalised, and there are a myriad ways of doing that. I said in a previous topic, my son is a Met constable, he doesn't say much, but his silences and "nothing much" comments speak volumes. He's maneouvred his career to be out of the areas from which officers are drafted in to man these demos, and refers to the scores who volunteer for this work as 'animals'. Moral is kept deliberately low so that policemen, generally, are angry with their lot. Maybe even Gilbert and Sullivan already knew that. Perhaps that was Ian Blair's secret objective? Jacquie Smith withheld the full payment of the last independently-agreed pay review, not because "the nation's economy couldn't afford it," (how hollow that sounds now!) but simply to make the police angry. Every policy enacted by the Government that interferes with the management of the police, often seen as more moral-lowering interference, is just that, designed to make the constables, maybe even subliminally, more and more dissatisfied. Think about it, a police force that is happy with its lot, its wages, its bosses and conditions, won't be much use in keeping the rest of the population from demonstrating against government excesses, endless restictions and totalitarianism!

Saw this on the Justice 4 Jean Facebook site:

JUSTICE4JEAN STATEMENT ON DEATH OF IAN TOMLINSON

"The family of Jean Charles de Menezes and their Campaign wish to express their deep condolences to the family of Ian Tomlinson over his tragic death. Our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.

"We have been following the emerging evidence relating to the police assault on Ian with grave sadness as we remember the early accounts of how Jean Charles’ death was reported. The Tomlinson family has a right to find out the truth behind what led to Ian’s death.

"We are concerned that the police appear to have misled the public about vital information regarding the circumstances of Ian’s death and find it deeply worrying that Ian’s death is not being independently investigated but rather; the City of London police force is investigating the Metropolitan police. How can an investigation claim to be independent if police officers are investigating themselves?

"The notion that the Met has fully learned the lessons of the Menezes tragedy must be called into question in the way in which they have handled the aftermath of Ian Tomlinson’s death. The media also must shoulder some criticism for its continued unquestioning acceptance of police accounts of contentious deaths.

"Justice4Jean continues to campaign to ensure that no family has to go through what the Menezes family endured. We have long called for an independent inquiry into the over arching issues raised by the shooting including the ability of the IPCC to deliver justice and how the police are able to repeatedly mislead the public over contentious deaths. The need for such an inquiry is clearly needed now more than ever and we hope the Tomlinson family get the truth and justice they deserve."

http://www.facebook.com/home.php...? gid=3035927451

I agree with the first contributor, Neil Hoskins. Murder implies intent to kill, and I doubt if such an intention could be proved here. At the very least, however, the policeman should be charged with assault. Whether the policeman was justified in his actions would came out in a trail.

The fact so many people show up to these demos shows that the public have lost faith in the democratic process, such as it is.

Of course it was ONLY the American bankers video that has led to an ´independant´IPCC enquiry.
The fact that this incident was probably recorded on several CCTV systems has lead to nothing.
My faith in the British press has been rekindled.

If we were in the U.S. now talking like this we would probably be rounded up or have men in black on our doorsteps. :-0 They probably wouldn't let us in if they knew who we were. After all, ESTA was about keeping the 'baddies' out! Any change is positive. I reckon we should all push for comprehensive banking regulation, one fully nationalised bank and an end to all charges. It's a prime time for us to strike on that. Get a big win on that, nothing less, and then move on to the next issue. That would the education system for me. That would be a masssive start. I also think that dissenting sites should hook up with each other in some way. A revolution won't change much in the long term I don't think. We need to create our democracy bit by bit.

This whole thing absolutely reeks. It's far more likely judging from the witness statements that he died from a head injury. For a patholgist not to come up with any external injuries just shows how far corruption has seeped into every aspect of government. The pathologist who carries out a second postmortem must be proven to be beyond reproach; the government will have a lot riding on the outcome.

'one fully nationalised bank.'

I mean at least one, not just one bank in the country, to be clear.

'I agree with the first contributor, Neil Hoskins. Murder implies intent to kill, and I doubt if such an intention could be proved here. At the very least, however, the policeman should be charged with assault. Whether the policeman was justified in his actions would came out in a trail.'

That was brutal involuntary manslaughter and nothing less. A Judge would have to determine the exact circumstances and apporpriate sentence. If I ran up behind a copper and whacked him with a stick and shoved him to the ground and he died I wonder what would happen to me?

On the basis that a picture tells a thousand words, the Metropolitan Police seem to be pioneering radical and revolutionary new 'alternative medicine' techniques with regard to assisting people at protests, as the photograph below clearly demonstrates.

See the picture at The Antagonist's blog post 'Rioting Police Physician, Heal Thy Self', here:
antagonise.blogspot.com

Why was the "officer" who killed Mr Tomlinson a)hiding his face, and b)not wearing eppelettes?
ALL of the other officers had theirs, as usual, on display. Only this ONE did not.

If you have not watched the video, do. Slow it down, freeze frame it and analyze if necessary. He is not wearing any, or has hidden them. Either this was premeditated, or, this was not a regular police officer. Very odd indeed. Also, note how he seems to make off towards the end of the video.

Obviously the new law prohibiting the taking of photos of police officers is so that they can beat up and murder any of us.
Craig asked in a previous entry what the 4,500 people at MI5 actually did for a living. I think fortuzero has given us the answer.

We're very rapidly approaching a re-enactment of the Peterloo masacre. Police are being armed with additional leathal weapons such as the taser, and in full riot gear and in ranks are in no danger from any crowd.

If things aren't stopped, the next peaceful protest could turn into a bloody mess as people refuse to be denied their right to march and the Police kill a number of them as punishment.

Yes, according to Ian Parker-Joseph soldiers are being asked if they are prepared to fire on civilians.

Martin: "My faith in the British press has been rekindled."

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I have now read a print copy of today's Guardian and you can't fault the space they have made for this story and the rigour of the coverage.

I could easily believe The Guardian have been shamed into this by criticism in the blogosphere, and want to prove what a newspaper can do. But credit where credit's due, a good piece of investigative reporting.

Fortuzero: "Why was the "officer" who killed Mr Tomlinson a)hiding his face, and b)not wearing eppelettes?"

Careful here. Low resolution pics from handheld video/mobile phones can easily be misinterpreted. Sounds odd, but just because you can't see the epaulettes doesn't necessarily mean they weren't there. What I would focus on is, there is plenty of ways of identifying who this cop is, and I hope he is volunteering himself to assist in the inquiry. But let's have his testimony on the public record.

Just read Lenin at Lenin's Tomb. http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/04/bbcs-disgraceful-performance-over-ian.html What a very acute commentator he is.

A very plausible explanation for The Guardian going to town on this is to rub the BBC's nose in it for their disgraceful performance. They refused to take the video footage from the Grauniad when offered it - shocking!

Excellent blog.

It's easy and understandable to jump to conclusions, without knowing the context, but with a little knowledge of kettling, and crowd behaviour, here is what the video says to me. It appears as if he's deliberately walking slowly in front of the police. Who knows whether he's been told to move faster. The policeman who pushes him appears to lose his temper and push him.

Losing your temper is no defence, especially if you're professionally involved. You've still committed a criminal offence.

Furthermore, commanders have a responsibility here too. The decision to kettle people here, which is treating them like animals, was taken on high. If the command is prepared to treat people like animals, why shouldn't the PCs? they take their lead from the command, and they stand there for hours caging people in. Is it any surprise they stop seeing them as the public they're supposed to protect and serve?

This is the Home Office pathologist who conducted the post mortem on Jean Charles de Menezes. I am not saying anything.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Reprimand-for-pathologist-in-Menezes.2062430.jp

Noteworthy that he didn't make any notes or remember which member of the police had given him information.

http://tiny.cc/6psVY

"Dr Kenneth Shorrock had wrongly recorded in his notes that the Brazilian jumped over a ticket barrier before "stumbling" down an escalator in the moments before officers shot and killed him.

The pathologist told the inquest into the death of Mr De Menezes he was given the false information during a walk-through with officers at Stockwell Tube station, south London, in the hours after the incident.

Mr De Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head on a Tube train by counter-terrorist police who mistook him for a suicide bomber in July 2005.

When asked why there were "significant errors" in his original report, the doctor answered: "This was what was told to me.

"What happened at that time was that there were a lot of officers present and we were taken through.

"I did not write anything down. I did not make any note of who told me what - but, at the next opportunity that I had, I got my dictaphone."

Dr Shorrock said he was not sure who it was who told him the Brazilian had "vaulted" the barrier before he was shot.

He also rejected a suggestion he had been swayed by media reports, saying he had completed his notes before he saw any news items."

The removal of responsibility is a typical government tactic used when deceitful acts occur.

Lies and Innuendo in the Ian Tomlinson Case

But all you have done is use this case to lie about the police and make innuendo. What's this latest crap about not trusting autopsies under New Labour?

Actually for awhile I thought irrationality had completely penetrated everybody on this issue, but I'm increasingly seeing posts from people on sites like CiF who have chosen to tell the truth about this incident and its context.

You often get these spasms of emotion and people using it for political purposes in the aftermath, but logic does tend to regain its normal path after awhile. That makes me feel better.

Strategist

It's always the same with media rivalries and jealousies. The Times and Indy were also slow to cover this as it wasn't "their" story. But I agree the BBC coverage has been supine -all too often they are just a New Labour mouthpiece these days. Evan Davis was disgracefully pro-police on Today this morning.

Now the Channel 4 film has filled in most of the gaps, the nonIndependent PCC are having to show a bit more urgency. Watch for them all distancing themselves from what went on...

Disgraceful that it takes a tragic death (not sure whether it was murder, probably manslaughter) for things to change. But they can't do a de Menezes on this one any more...

Jess

Have you actually watched the Guardian and Channel 4 News films? It's not innuendo, it's observation.

Defending the indefensible is not a good idea...

Did Mr Crick display the Top Secret memo on purpose so that the fear of terror could be heightened and the ten 'terrorists' be swooped down upon immediately? Will they ultimately be released like the Viva Palestina nine?

It might also have been decided that it was a good diversionary tactic in the light of current events.

NuLabour trolls like Jess can leave the room.

He is Quick, not Crick. He may or may not be Thick or Slick, but is definitely a Pr**ck.

'Will they ultimately be released like the Viva Palestina nine?'

I don't know. I'm watching the BBC now and they were supposedly muslim and Asian so may well have been evil terrorists. :-0 I reckon they sped it all up to divert headlines away from the G20 death. Ooh and the news just said that Jacqui Smith claimed it was a purely operational decision to rush the raids. :-0 All above board then. Ooh, the report just finished with 'they may well all be released' after a full 10 minutes into the subject. Good job BBC!

V. good Anticant. I don't know how my clumsy mitts transposed Quick to Crick. It must have been a trick. Francis Crick discovered the DNA molecule so was obviously very bright. I don't think we can say the same about Quick whom I think of as Quick, Quick Slow from the days of those dancing programmes with Victor Sylvester. I will go and lie down now.

Re: Death of Ian Tomlinson.

Heart attack, not head injury.

The likelihood of a not-so-young unfit person suffering a heart attack is thirty (30) times greater when stressed either physically or emotionally than when at rest (ref: Wikipedia on heart attacks).

A big squirt of adrenaline makes the heart suddenly double its normal rate, the arteries pound, bits of plaque flake off and combine to start a thrombus. Ten minutes later - heart attack, whose location determines whether you live or die.

Being body-checked and batoned out of the blue by a riot police officer would be enough stress to cause a sudden high heart rate and ultimately death in someone with furred arteries.

I suppose police training doesn't include "This is an older person, don't shove them around". More along the lines of the finer points of baton usage, what do you bet. Just what a young aggressive plod doesn't need.

Manslaughter? On balance, I'm not sure. There is no reasonable excuse for the level of force used. Dismissed the force, certainly. But some senior officers should also have their careers ended, for their lack of foresight in providing proper guidance.

The revolutionary rhetoric is starting to hit the target. We need to change the whole governance system, rather than venting bile against individuals. Don't you think it's time to revise the Parliamentary system? We need constitutional change. As Milgram demonstrated, good people easily lose their moral sense when acting on behalf of institutions. The reasons are found in the nature of the group, not the peope who comprise them. History shows that if we get rid of the miscreants, good people step in to fill their shoes and end up behaving the same way - as long as they toe the party line. Watch the film 'The Corporation' (Google for the trailer), in which numerous leading lights argue that large companies tend to behave like psychopaths (step forward Micro$oft, Coca Cola ... ad nauseam) unless they are somehow held in check; but they're not composed of social demons. The phenomenon is also endemic in the public sector (NHS, government, universities, even charities). It's not that these institutions attract bad people - they don't even produce bad people. Instead, they twist people's perceptions until they don't realise the sinister connotations of their actions (re Michael Palin's character in 'Brazil'). Craig is a worthy exception. Unfortunately, there aren't enough like him around. Short of cloning, we need to look at how and why institutional allegiance does this to people and try, somehow, to neutralise it.

There is not a shred of evidence that the police as an institution lied about anything, of course. Only an individual officer who didn't come forward presumably because he thought people would blame Tomlinson's subsequent heart attack on him. I think we can safely say that the officer's fear's have been proven correct from the media coverage of the event.

I wouldn't defend this notorious shove of Tomlinson - clearly it was a bit heavy handed - but I can also understand why it would seem strange to the officer that this man still didn't obey their orders to clear the street despite them having vicious police dogs. They must have thought he was a bit of a nutter for doing that, and did not know he was simply drunk.

I agree that there should be a full investigation of this matter, but now we're all on record as agreeing that shoving people can be dangerous, I look forward to Murray's campaign to appeal for witnesses and TV footage of all the people that threw bottles at the police on that day, and to have them prosecuted for attempted murder. One thrown glass bottle can kill, of course, as we know from the case this week of a baby that died after a bottle was thrown into a pub, so I hope you will have the faces of these would-be killers at the G8 protests on the frontpages tomorrow.

" ... but I can also understand why it would seem strange to the officer that this man still didn't obey their orders to clear the street despite them having vicious police dogs. They must have thought he was a bit of a nutter for doing that, and did not know he was simply drunk."

Jess do you work for the police? You manage to portray the victim as a "drunk" and a "nutter" in one sentence. So a man walking home from work who is (according to eye witnesses and video evidence) billy clubbed and pushed to the ground can be vilified because he wasn't quick enough in running away from the thugs in uniform. Your world must be a very unpleasant place.

Drew, Jess is just a troll. His objective is to wind you up. Best to ignore him.

John D. Monkey: The British press can do the right thing, as long as there is a base & ignoble reason for doing so... the very best traditions of Fleet Street!

It seems that Mr Tomlinson was somewhat cowed on video having already been given a good kicking all along the street - before the video in question.

We must ask why 'that particular video' was allowed out - leaked to The Guardian no less.

Dodgy.

I wouldn't defend this notorious shove. . . said a notorious troll.

Well, he would say that wouldn't he?

Craig, I've just gone snap between here and Lenin's Tomb:

"Jess" posting on this site at 8.48pm: "Actually for awhile I thought irrationality had completely penetrated everybody on this issue, but I'm increasingly seeing posts from people on sites like CiF who have chosen to tell the truth about this incident and its context. You often get these spasms of emotion and people using it for political purposes in the aftermath, but logic does tend to regain its normal path after awhile. That makes me feel better."

The infamous, obsessive, virtually full-time troll "Mike" of Harry's Place notoriety posting on Lenin's Tomb at 8.34pm:

"Actually for awhile I thought irrationality had completely overcome everybody on this issue, but I'm increasingly seeing posts from people on sites like CiF who have chosen to tell the truth about this incident and its context. You often get these spasms of emotions and people using it for political purposes in the aftermath, but logic does tend to regain its normal path after awhile. That makes me feel better."

Jess is Mike (who is also Ed D who has been trying to disrupt discussion on the Socialist Unity site). Craig, I hope you will seriously consider simply deleting Jess on sight. Sounds harsh but, to coin a phrase, it's the only language he understands.

Ken: good insight via your son's take on police attitudes.

Government reduces police morale.
The police then become increasingly confrontational.
Public becomes increasingly wary of police.
Government behavior outrages public, leading to demonstrations.
Demonstrations inevitably lead to clashes between police and public.
More violence.
More outrage.

Government then awards even more power to both themselves and their nu-praetorian guard.

It should be obvious that both the police and the public have a common enemy. The enemy which seeks to inflame the passions of both to keep one 'loyal' - and the other down.

If anyone doubts that we are all being royally set up, just consider the publicity campaign that led up to this: all the 'Summer of Rage' headlines - the slick trailer campaign fed to us over the last few months . . . .

When those who serve the system (police, military, civil servants) finally see how utterly used they have been we will see real, systemic and lasting change. In the meantime, we need to remember we have all been assigned the roles of bit players in a drama written by pathological cowards.

So he has nothing better to do with his life than try - unsuccessfully - to upset people on internet forums? That's quite sad. Sort it out Jess. Life's way too short for pathetic activities like that. Something obviously isn't right in your life. THE GUY IS ***DEAD***. HE HAD A LARGE FAMILY. WHAT HAPPENED WAS INEXCUSABLE. Wake up, start thinking, contribute intelligently and i'm sure you will be welcome on internet forums.

Oh - is Jess a man? I had visualised him/her as a crabby middle-aged Stalinist woman [university lecturer or some such] of the Anna Pauker variety.

Came across this article regarding the CCTV coverage prior to the G20....
So how does this look then?

http://bulldogger.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/ahead-of-g20-summit-council-told-to-switch-off-illegal-15m-cctv-network/

"And people are starting at last to understand where the smell comes from."...

http://tinyurl.com/dy23rx

Freemasonry plays a BIG part in government and police.

"Freemasonry plays a BIG part in government and police."

And the legal establishment.

Drew, I said the police must have percieved Tomlinson as a nutter for not moving back with the other demonstrators despite holding police dogs. That he was drunk is what the autopsy said. You will also note that this wasn't a normal day with a normal police patrol walking along - violent protests had occurred all day and police had been given orders to clear that street.

Why are people so scared of the context of what happened?

I note Strategist is calling everyone who disagrees with him a troll.

I find it very difficult to comment about the police for fear it will be read as anti-policing per se - and thus counter-productive. So let me be clear: I believe effective policing is as necessary to the smooth running of society and community as the any other public service - transport, communications, utilities etc etc. - the operative words being 'public service'. But - BIG BIG BUT - something has gone horribly wrong with policing in this country. The execution of Jean Charles de Menezes and the death of Ian Tomlinson are just the high profile tips of a massive iceberg. My own realisation of this was forced by the behaviour of the Met police and their arrogant swaggering TSG thugs at the last Parliament Square demo before passage of the Hunting Act. I was present throughout. Their behaviour was quite simply appalling - totally unbelievable to the average Joe in fact. Subsequent 'investigations' and attempted prosecutions of a few officers were of a piece with all that I have seen since - the Babar Ahmed arrest and subsequent cover ups being among the worst. Police statement collusion; vanishing evidence (letters of complaint dossier about the officers involved with Barbar Ahmed, de Menezes CCTV evidence; blaming the victim; A cosy relationship between the IPCC and the police etc etc)

It is a complex issue but at its heart is one simple fact: viz the police will ALWAYS be given the benefit of the most grave and obvious doubts by a cowed, fractious and fearful public. The police know this better than anyone and their behaviour is MASSIVELY influenced by it. They are human, with all the strengths and failing that implies. Given the pumped up environment of perpetual (but ridiculous) terrorist fears we now inhabit, they know it is all to easy to indulge their brutish instincts - or even 'shoot first and ask questions later' - and get away with it. so it is inevitable that some of them do just that.

@Jess:

> Why are people so scared of the context of what happened?

I don't know if that's a fair characterisation, but conversely, why are you so keen to support the police? Is it the case that, in supporting New Labour authoritarianism, you'd prefer state violence of this kind to go substantially unchallenged?

@sabretache - good analysis. I differ slightly from your perspective in that I tend to view the necessity of a police force as a societal failing, and admire the theoretical ideals of anarchism here whilst doubting it could ever exist in practise. I see the vote-winning gambit of "more officers on the beat" is a sticking plaster offered by all political parties, and challenging the root causes of crime and disenfranchisement is offered by precisely no mainstream parties at all.

Meanwhile just as is the case with the armed forces, the opportunity to exercise violence against others rouses the worst kind of monster in people psychologically pre-disposed to authoritarianism. Modifying Chomsky's maxim he applies to the position of US President, I would offer, somewhat tongue in cheek: "Any officer who wants to join the riot squad should be automatically disqualified from doing so".

Jess,

Where to begin... I lack both the time and inclincation to make this comprehensive, so all I will say is this;

The police "perceived I.T as a "Nutter" " - Ah, I see - so it's OK to assault the mentally unwell now is it?

"..he was drunk..." - Again, that makes it OK to assault him. From behind. With a baton.

Have you ever heard of "Power and Responsibility"? The state and their tools and apparatus, in this instance the police, have the upper hand. They are armed, and essentially have carte blanche. Why are you siding with them? Escpecially given the "Context of what happened".

This was a man who was clearly unarmed, passive, and moving away from the "officers".

Presumably you are, as others have noted, a troll or a paid PR bod. Or possibly you have some ties to the forces, or other government agency. Either way, your arguments are vacuous and hold no water.

Just on the subject of police track record, and off the top of my head;

Birmingham 6 Guildford 4, Macguire 7, Judith Ward, Danny Mcnamee, Jean Charles De Menezes, Harry Stanley...

All were definitely, absolutely spot on, and the police/government didn't lie or attempt to cover up ANY of these pieces of work , did they...

Don't get me wrong - some individual policemen and women do a great job, and they enter the force with the best of intentions, I am sure. Many of us can be grateful for the good work they do. Many, however do not. We should never assume they are right or honest or any less corrupt than anyone else, just because they wear uniforms. History really should teach us that if nothing else.

http://fortuzero.wordpress.com

Jess, stop being a tool.

"..a nutter for not moving back with the other demonstrators.." He wasn't a demonstrator, he was a man going home from work. A little care with the facts, please.

This man was struck by a police officer, he is now dead. The episode is shameful, as are you.

'Freemasonry plays a BIG part in government and police.

And the legal establishment.'

Hand on heart, I think they are just a bunch of big kiddies with a lack of individual identity to boot if I may be so bold. I'm sure they claim differing reasons for their existence though. I deem them unhealthy for democracy. Baah...

I nominate you as our country's next prime minister, Craig. But then, I have an inkling that you probably wouldn't take the job. High personal integrity tends to distance itself from dishonesty and corruption.

The sort of corruption we're looking at here - a fudgy mess of obfuscation, half-truths, foot-dragging and 'dependent inquiries' - has reached new depths of all-pervasive epidemic under this administration. Absolutely NO-ONE employed or funded by gvt takes responsibility for anything now, no-one is accountable, there are always loopholes through which they can slither.

Every profession has been infested. And NuLab has even invented new 'professions' to keep this societally-devastating irresponsibility going - quite apart from spin-meistering, what about the huge phalanx of NHS managers whose twin and only aims in life are to silence staff and patients and to reduce costs in any way possible, including murder?

You've clearly connected the dots between the licence to torture and the more mundane (but nonetheless treacherous and even murderous) attacks by petty bureaucrats in most people's daily lives. It seems to me that most folks are just not up to speed yet - maybe they don't want to consciously acknowledge the fascist horror that is building before our eyes.

Anyone who has had any significant contact with the police in the last five years or so will recognise the veracity of your assessment and and the urgent necessity of your proposals, as I understand them, for a return to decency, integrity, democracy, the genuine rule of law and authentic parliamentary representation. Otherwise the country will indeed find itself not just in a manufactured 'summer of rage' but in years of flaming turmoil. But, as other posters have indicated, for perverse and sinister reasons those pervasive 'dark actors' and their largely unwitting henchmen are working to set this almost inevitable scenario up...

"TAKING LIBERTIES" is an excellent documentary showing how far down the road we are with respect to becoming a police state. Individual police officers will always be heavy handed - it is the lack of accountability of these officers that is so worrying.

Jess, I'm calling you a troll.
Do you deny that you post as Mike on Lenin's Tomb?

Jon

We're not that far apart. I agree that the necessity for policing IS a societal failing but one that, short of the perfection of human nature, I fear we are unlikely to be ever able to dispense with. I am a firm believer that the police should not enjoy either powers or legal/procedural considerations different to any other citizen. They should be made absolutely accountable to the communities they serve and any alleged supra-community activities (ie regional or national) made rigorously and transparently accountable to Parliament. All policing trends since I can remember have moved us further and further away from that ideal. All too often now the police behave as though any and every member of the general public is a potential enemy to be pre-emptively dealt with as such - and 'never mind the niceties because we know we can get away with just about anything'

That should read "Neither powers Nor" - I'm becoming a bit dyslexic I fear.

Jess:

"That he was drunk is what the autopsy said."

You must be a cop if you have access to the autopsy report. Nah - you're just a wee troll pal.

A little anecdote about the general fractious and fearful state of the general public and the way it is played upon. On a R5 phone-in a couple of hours ago a 'Frank Gardiner' type (you know one of those Security-Services clones fed information so they can pose as 'independent experts') was berating a Phoner-in who was arguing for the police to be more open and honest. I think the prog was about the 'terrorist arrests today but it doesn't matter. The 'Expert' interrupted sharply and rudely to the effect "5 years ago 55 innocent Londoners were killed by the sorts of people the police have to face every day, so lets get our priorities right here shall we? ..." (or words to that effect). It was intended to be an argument clincher - as such things usually are.

Had I been on the other end of that line, I would have shot back more sharply something like " YES - and since then no fewer than 15,000 people have been killed on our roads. You have a vastly greater chance of winning the National Lottery than being harmed by a terrorist so YES INDEED LET's START SORTING OUR PRIORITIES OUT"

But he got away with it as always - a bit like shouting 'Anti-Semite' at someone arguing against Zionism. - or 'Conspiracy theorist' against someone questioning the official narrative of epoch-changing events. It's intended to shut down debate and leave people fearful - and it does.

There have been people in government and the bureaucracy pushing for a National Police Force for some time. The idea that the police constabularies were local forces administering the Common Law on behalf of the citizenry whose job it was seems to have been lacking in something for these types - perhaps they hanker after some Compagnies Republicaines de Securite of this Police Nationale?

Among the issues that drove the Civil War in the 17th Century (apart from "no taxation without representation" which seems to have gone by the board, too) were the Supremacy of the Common Law over all with no exceptions, and the hostility to a standing army. Oh, and also the abolition of Star Chamber Courts. This wannabe Police Nationale seems to have stepped into the 'standing army' shoes at war with the citizenry.

A question I have frequently in the last couple of years asked of politicasters, and not simply Neo Labour ones, is "Is England a more dangerous place now than in 1215 that we need you to behave in this way?"

Sabretache,
Thanks for the link to the 'STOP BLAIR' petition. I just signed....

------------------
This man Blair is connected with around a million deaths in Iraq. It is unthinkable that he should hold office - anywhere.
------------------

Plenty of room for more signatures ....
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stopblair/sign.html

Sabretache

Some rhetorical questions.

Do we know exactly what happened in London on July 7th. NO

Were there any inquests? NO

Has there been an enquiry? NO

Nearly four years have passed and we are none the wiser. Was it a false flag operation? Who knows? No wonder conspiracy theories abound. There is a comment at the end of the post.

http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2008/06/proposed-counter-terrorism-bill.html

I look at it like a big jigsaw. If you fill in enough pieces you can see what the picture is. You don't need all the pieces. I clearly see a flying pig. They can say 'no, it's a dog' a million times over, but I do clearly see a flying pig.

9/11 - Spectacular coordinated attack followed by restrictive legislation on the population.

7/7 - Spectacular coordinated attack followed by restrrictive legislation on the population.

Well, now we are all safe because of the restrictive legislation there have been no other spectacular coordinated attacks. Pull the other one! I reckon Blair knew about 7/7, but I can't be certain. He might just be a complete idiot being used by them. He is definitely in amongst them though. 'Them' is a secret group. You can debate and speculate about exactly who is involved and why they did it, but they did it. Any openminded rational individual should be able to figure that one out. They are self-deluded and wrapped up in their own power trip I reckon. Whatever their motives it didn't have to be like that. How would they have liked their mothers, fathers, sons or daughters being blown to bits or slowly roasted and forced to leap from 200 floors up? The C word springs to mind. Could stopping us realy breaking their shackles be a big part of it? After all, democracy has many aspects and shades of grey. Maybe a lot of it has been an illusion and we are approaching a crossroads? We have come a long way and they want us back in our closets?

As I understand it, the officer in the videos has come forwarded but not been suspended. (Latest BBC news).
Imagine for a moment, you’re an ordinary chap earning an ordinary living, with ordinary standards of decency. You go to work, and you find you have to work next to someone whose picture has been on the TV as contributing to the beating to death of one of your customers. Your bosses don’t suspend him, your other colleagues know about this person, and know you are working with him and maybe others trying to protect him. Maybe your only option to keep your sanity is to go off sick. But that would probably be rumbled, and you take your responsibilities for your wife and children seriously. How angry would that make you? How well will you be able to do your job and keep your temper dealing with tricky or unknown situations comprising upset and emotional, but innocent, citizens (really, customers)?
This is how ordinary policemen are treated these days, anything to make them angry and demoralised.

Sabretach above is dead right. The argument needs to be made loud and clear. We all have far more chance of meeting an early and violent death on Britain’s roads than ever being harmed by terrorists. And every day the police face the sorts of people (that is, arrest them, search their houses and take their DNA) that the government try to pretend will do us harm. Right now, there are more-or-less NO police daily facing the sorts of people who will kill 3000 of US every year on our roads. That is left to a few cameras that have had no effect on the 3000 dead per year figure, year in year out.

Time to sort the priorities out, and stop using the police to prop up corrupt administrations.

Mary

It was J7 and 9/11 I had in mind when I made that 'Conspiracy Theory' comment - though God knows there are plenty of others out there too. I do not know what accurate narratives of those events would reveal; what I do know - as surely as I know anything - is that the official narratives of those events are so full of holes as to render them absurd. Not only that but the way that any questioning of the official narratives is dealt with by The Establishment guarantees to anyone with half a brain that what is being hidden would be devastatingly damaging to those narratives. It is natural to draw damning conclusions.

The problem is that they are now so embedded in the collective psyche; so central to our entire foreign policy and the phoney 'War on Terror' with its appalling domestic Police-State-like consequences (not to mention millions of dead and displaced by our self-righteous war-mongering, that the prospects of finding out what really happened are practically non-existent.

I may indeed be labelled dismissively as a 'Conspiracy Theorist' but rather that than a gormless, indignant, fearful, authority-trusting 'Coincidence Theorist'

"Will you open fire on UK citizens' Army personnel being asked"...

http://tinyurl.com/agu9r6

"Will you open fire on UK citizens Army personnel being asked"...

http://tinyurl.com/agu9r6

As expected, no CCTV footage apparently.

IPCC: CCTV wasn't working
http://tinyurl.com/cl5tyl

[Channel 4]

What a surprise.

"Ahead of G20 summit, council told to switch off illegal £15m CCTV network"...

http://tinyurl.com/ct8do8

Oh dear. Must these comments on our creeping authoritarian state always descend into conspiracy theories regarding 7/7?

Just because Peter Power's Visor security company was running multiple terror drills at exactly the same location at exactly the same time as the 'real' bombings doesn't mean we have to start thinking something fishy is going on.

And just because the alleged bombers were upstanding members of their communities, loving fathers, volunteer schoolhelpers etc certainly doesn't give us license to imagine that these people were in fact actors hired by elements deep within the intelligence services to take part in 'mock' terror drills and shoot 'supporting' videos all for a princely sum on condition of absolute silence.

Good grief, no.

Next you'll be finding something suspicious about the government's absolute refusal to allow a public enquiry into this nation's worst ever 'terrorist' attack.

What on Earth is wrong with you people? Don't you realise thinking for yourself is dangerous?

Who benefits from violence at demonsrations?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

I'm surprised no-one has posted the above; police agents provocateurs posing as 'anarchists', getting caught out by a diligent (and I have to say, heroic) Union leader at a demonstration in Quebec.

I think the police tactics was exactly the replica of what the british police under guidance of tony blair-war criminal and -di to the demonstratoions in april or may 2001 when the police forced the woemn kidsnad men to be packed into samll squares and lanes and prohibit them from going to proper toilet even.! britian has been a police state for a long time-itis only that british think that police brutallity is for foreiners so they keep quiet about it.

"I'm surprised no-one has posted the above; police agents provocateurs posing as 'anarchists'"

It's a clip I'm fond of posting myself. Proof beyond doubt that there is no level the PTB won't stoop to to get what they want.

It's becoming reasonably common practice among my circle of friends to approach masked, rabble-rousing 'protesters' at demos and ask them for the time, directions etc.

"What"?

"Oh - terribly sorry. Mistook you for a policeman".

As I pointed out earlier, the idea is to foment as much tension as possible between the public and the police and then play one side off against the other. Fake 'anarchists' have proven very handy in the past for achieving this, but the mask is coming off, thanks to people such as the union leader in the above clip. Excellent work, sir.

In this disgusting game, the police are as much victims of the power players as the public are. Although power never willingly gives up power, it will have little choice when both the public and the controllers' support mechanisms (police, military etc) unite in mutual understanding of how they've been duped.

We are supposed to fight the police.
The police are supposed to fight us.

Let's not play that game.

"britian has been a police state for a long time-itis only that british think that police brutallity is for foreiners so they keep quiet about it."

When governments cease to fear the people, police brutality is never far behind.

Only when the police identify with the people are governments kept in check.

I find it impossible to believe that none of the CCTV's were working. I presume the CCTV service provider will loose revenue!!! And indeed who are the service providers? The police?

If the police are out in such force and as we are told always photgraphing demos again this is all too much.

Agent provocateurs have been at it for years - read about the case of _Auguste Coulon_, from 1892:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walsall_Anarchists
note that the Home Office & the Metropolitan Police attempted to conceal the evidence for over 80 years.

Also trumped up 'terrorism' charges have historical precedent: read about the case of _Alice Wheeldon_ from 1916:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dl4th5
again, the truth regarding this case was buried for 60 years.

Hi,

Thought you might like to know that a Lancashire Policeman is currently under investigation for allegedly acting in a similar fashion to the guy who felled Mr Tomlinson. PC Paul Carbery (see Blackburn ‘CCTV Cities’) is accused of suddenly and violently throwing a 65 year old disabled man to the ground from behind. Two further Officers are under investigation for deliberately failing to retrieve the video footage that would have provided evidence of the assault.

They shouldn't let it rest there. They should demand the service dates of those cameras, their last footage taken, the documented reports of when the cameras malfunctioned, affidavits from the control room operatives that no CCTV from that day was available, as well as from the technicians who last serviced the cameras. Connections between the camera company with 7/7 etc should also be checked out.

The sh1tty police are obviously lying and they can be caught lying by pursuing the matter. If they do things to cover it up, it's likely the will make themselves more easily exposed.

@ The Cartoonist

The URL you gave says this...
""We don't have CCTV footage of the incident... there is no CCTV footage, there were no cameras in the location where he was assaulted."

Speaking to More 4 News, the IPCC confirmed Hardwick's comment, saying that the CCTV cameras overlooking the incident were not working

Paragraph 1: "there were no cameras in the location where he was assaulted." "

Paragraph 2: "the CCTV cameras overlooking the incident ..."

Ummmmmm.....

I'm watching News 24. The headline is 'MAJOR TERROR PLOT'. What a load of cobblers. Gordon Brown is our saviour? I see all news about expenses and Tomlinson has now evaporated. Instead we now have 10 minute episodes including live correspondents and Gordon telling us we have been saved from a major terror plot. Funny how all that cropped up just now! Quick wanted nothing to do with it? Something stinky and Brown about all this and it's not just Gordon.

I'm now switching over to Channel 4 to watch 'The Greatest story Ever Told' to see if it does outdo what I have just seen.

Jaded

You need to see my new post just published - where I say much the same thing, only with more waffle.

Looks like the cameras have an infallible alibi / excuse:
(1) There were NO cameras there, and
(2) The cameras which were there were NOT working .....

How about:
(3) The cameras which were not there, and were not working, were pointed in the wrong direction
(4) And accidentally had their lens caps left on

The use of silence and then smears in the case of Ian Tomlinson follows exactly the the same pattern the Greek police used in the aftermath of the shooting of the teenager that led to three weeks of rioting last December.

See here for more similarities between the two cases.

http://teacherdudebbq.blogspot.com/2009/04/ian-tomlinson-alexis-grigoropoulos-two.html

CCTV not working YET AGAIN eh?
Quelle surprise! How convenient-for some...
There should be extremely punitive laws NOW for CCTV operators whose eqpt fails.

Frank Gardiner? Just another drone who can't speak unless somebody winds up the mechanisim protruding from his back.

Freemasonry??
Some join for the brotherhood.
Some for the arcane rituals.
Some for the mystique.
Others for the subsidised booze and lukewarm lamb chop and rather cold peas.
Some join for the genuinely proper reasons.
Some join becasue they never grew out of playground intrigues and the gang mentality.
Some join for influence of varying degrees and type.
Some join for money.
Many join because they're scared not to.
Always remember the pyramids were built by slaves.

Herewith a relevant revisitation - police-media public protest deceits (circa late '68/69).
http://recycledbogrollblues.blogspot.com/2009/04/ian-tomlinson-cop-demo-liars-circa.html

18 August 2005

"The police and the media have a distinguished history of misrepresentation in such cases; there have been more than 1,000 deaths in police custody in Britain in the past 30 years - most involving restraint, either in the cells or during arrest - and many of these people have subsequently been demonised."...

http://tinyurl.com/cxapk2

"1,000 deaths in police custody in Britain in the past 30 years"

Well said Craig.....as a crusty old judge once said "be you ever so high, the Law is above you". The police carry out acts like this because, generally speaking they get away with it. The IPCC really means the Institute for the Protection of Crooked Coppers, they are not truly independent a lot of their workforce is made up of the police. I hope the Tomlinson family get justice, but I'm crossing my fingers as I say it.

Michael Irving makes a good point. That police moral/pay/conditions are quite possibly deliberately kept low so as to fuel anger and hostility and terror. They do the same with teachers.