Ian Tomlinson Killing and Official Lies 64


So the second post mortem shows that Ian Tomlinson did not die of a heart attack, but of an abdominal haemmorhage. A policeman has been interviewed under caution for manslaughter.

If that American tourist had not captured on video one stage of the unprovoked police assault on Mr Tomlinson, the original falsified post mortem report of heart attack would have stood. So would the Metropolitan police statement that they had “No contact” with Mr Tomlinson.

Let us catalogue the lies we have been told by the authorities in this case:

Lie 1 – There was no police contact with Mr Tomlinson

Lie 2 Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack

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

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

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

There may be more.

This is an echo of the numerous appalling lies the police told in the Jean Charles De Menezes case, which led to the astonishing ruling that the police are allowed to lie, even on oath, by the worst judge ever to sit in England.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2008/12/the_disgraceful.html

It is the whole police philosophy of violence towards dissent, and dehumanising tactic of “kettling” people, that killed Mr Tomlinson. To charge a single individual will not be sufficient.

The government pathologist who carried out the original post mortem must be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. He must also be struck off by the General Medical Council.

The police spokesmen who told the lies that there was no police contact with Mr Tomlinson, and that protestors threw missiles at police treating Mr Tomlinson, must be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The senior police officers in charge of devising the “kettling” tactics and cordons at the G20 must be charged with manslaughter.

The responsible minister, Jacqui Smith, should resign.


64 thoughts on “Ian Tomlinson Killing and Official Lies

1 2 3
  • Ruth

    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.

  • IAN CAMERON

    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.

  • Jon

    @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.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.