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.


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.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

64 thoughts on “Ian Tomlinson Killing and Official Lies

1 2 3
  • Ruth

    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.

  • Craig

    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.

  • Silent Hunter

    “…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.

  • Jason

    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.

  • Jaded

    ‘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.

  • xsdogskin

    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.

  • anticant

    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.

  • Ron

    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.

  • Silent Hunter


    Oh Great! Now I too have “guilt”. :o)

    OK, I promise not to respond to the Labour Troll.

  • Jess

    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.

  • anticant

    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.

  • Jaded

    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.

  • Gregg

    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?

  • Jess

    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.

  • JimmyGiro

    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:


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

  • Colin

    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 !

  • Gregg

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

    Can you give the url for that particular CiF post?

  • Jason

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

    Ladies and gentlemen, Tweedledum has entered the building.

  • Gregg

    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?

  • anticant

    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!”

  • mrjohn

    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.

  • Chris

    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.

  • Twizzle

    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.

  • colin

    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 .

  • Jaded

    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.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.