The Policeman's Blog

I didn't see a 'beating' as was alleged by a previous comment, and the guy already looked disoriented and maybe ill, or in need of help.

The cop should not have done what he did, and should be spoken to or given a smack in the mouth by his sarge.
 

You just know that the officer is going to get hammered in the media no matter what the outcome. I would like to think that he really is very very sorry that this has happened, no matter what the mitigating circumstances. I have read somewhere that poor Mr Tomlinson had been drinking, hence mickfly's post about him being disorientated. Maybe this also had something to do with him dying.

I agree, it wasnt a beating but a hard shove. Of course the press will milk this for all it's worth, and so with the G20 protesters. The protesters are completely innocent of anything of course.

On Sky News earlier, Kay Burley (the one other newsreaders hate working with!) asked another member of the public who was caught on in the protests if he had any anomosity towards the police. To his credit he said no. No matter how many times he was asked. He said he realised that those on the ground were doing as they were told and that they had been on their feel for hours on end.

The posts on the Daily Mail are as expected all anti-police. I wonder when they will do a long story about officers who get seriously injured on duty every week. Probably not newsworthy enough.
 

Your trolls are our citizens ...

Keep your filthy hands off people, until they have broken the law and you have cautioned them.

Easy.

It is a shame, that this officer, who probably just 'lost it', should be the scapegoat for your institutional forgetfulness that you serve the public and you should not kill them for no good reason.

But then, if you do not have the balls to deal with 'trolls', you certainly do not have the balls for much else.

WM
 

In the G20 situation, Im not sure why the cop even had the need to shove him, maybe he was walking slowly because he was already Ill at that point. Who knows??

In relation to the other story about the Officer who killed the pedestrian, how can anyone say 90mph in a bult up area without blues and twos on, sasy as he did, it was safe to do so....... Driving like this then pleading not guilty seems crazier than needing to shove Mr Tomlinson
 

I have to ask:
a) What is the police opinion on what is a prima facie assault?
b) What would have happened if I as a MOP acted in this way towards Mr Tomlinson in front of that many police officers?
c) Why have not all of the police off the other police officers come forward? d) At what point should the police, in a difficult situation should be held accountable for the use of excessive force?
e) Why did the other officers not help Mr Tomlinson?
f) How can we the public, reconcile the first reports form the police with the emerging facts, and still retain trust?
I am aware that although the recording does not look good, we do not have all the information and I remember a recording of a young “lady” being “beaten” which turned out to be something completely different. I have just heard that there are reports that Mr Tomlinson had already been assaulted by the police before the videoed incident. As the eyewitness accounts seem to be more reliable than the police statements (so far) do any of the serving officers have a comment on this?
PS I am sorry to see NJ go and would have left a comment, but he has closed the blog. NJ if you are reading this good luck with the book.


Joseph K.
 

This post has been removed by the author.
 

As an ex-Police Officer and Defensive Skills Instructor ( I trained Officers in the correct use of batons, CS spray, etc ) I can say from viewing that video that the Officer was facing no threat from Mr Tomlinson and therefore had absolutely no justification in his actions. There were at least two section supervisors present ( visible by their blue vests ) They should all be easily identified along with the Dog Handlers. This Officer should come forward without delay, or be identified by colleagues. They know who he is. It's not clear to me if he was a Met Officer or City of London, but the CCTV should make that plain. No cover up please Commissioner, this Officer has no place in the Force, nor have any Officers that try to hide him.
 

Whilst clearly not a beating (at least, not what we can see in that video), I'd bet by bum that if I did that to someone else or to an officer I'd be cuffed for assault in seconds, and not without reason. I'm sure it was a difficult day for all concerned but all the rest of the officers out that day seemed to manage to resist the temptation to push over a man who was walking away from them, not talking to them, not bothering them, so why couldn't this one?

No, this is not acceptable behaviour from the police. They are public servants and as a member of that public I do not want soemone like that in my employ and he should be found and punished appropriately and, realistically, booted out of the force otherwise it will only serve to further undermine the authority of the office, even without the gratuitous and vulgar posturing of the lazy journos of Her Majesty's Press Corps.
 

Could the person be not a Police Officer but a soldier dressed up to provide numbers?

Bit like 7/7 when people with Police on their caps appeared but happened to have weapons that were not issued to Police Officers.

Real cheap shot anyway to attack someone with their back turned and hands in their pockets. The officers closest to Tomlinson are clearly not threatened by him, as their batons are down before the assailant comes into shot to push him for no apparent reason.

I counted 4 different police dogs there as well so they were hardly outnumbered.

What is more those involved are supposedly not putting their hands up.
 

See here for another angle.
From Channel 4 News.
 

I know the phrase 'bad apple' is going to get chucked around a lot, but something else that concerns me (other than the attack) is the demeanour of the other officers nearby. Throughout the incident none of them give any indication that this is anything other than a normal and unremarkable event.

I know officers on the ground will have their 'game face' on (apart from the ones who are masked: what's going on with that?), but the lack of any kind of reaction to the attack, or Mr. Tomlinson's distress as he lay on the ground worries me.

Is this sort of behaviour so common that it passes by hardly noticed?
 

Personal opinion:

Told to move, failed to move, pushed = reasonable force

Stood with back to multiple officers, hands in pockets, no aggression, struck with baton = excessive force

I find the killing of the 16 year old girl - and even more so the police behaviour after the incident - far more shocking. Tasering her boyfriend who is trying to help her? Wow, that's sick. No wonder the attitude of ordinary people is hardening towards the police.
 

Cut and paste from another post, but relevant here if you'll excuse the repeat:

A criminally, deliberately reckless driver ran down and killed a close friend of mine. However, I don't have a burning hatred for every other driver on the road or believe there is a conspiracy amongst them to kill innocent people. The fact that they continue to do so still doesn't stop me from venturing out onto the roads. If a police officer uses unnecessary force he has to answer for it. That video clip shows what may be such a case, but the force used was no more than what would amount to a common assault, the absolute minimal form of assault. Had the unfortunate victim had a notice on him saying, "I have a congenital heart defect and may die if pushed over", it could be argued that this might lead to a possible murder investigation. But the poor victim didn't have that sign. If he'd just been knocked down and then got up and dusted himself down it wouldn't even be sufficient to go to court, although a discipline may take place and he may have successfully sued for damages or settled `out of court`. But a few minutes later the poor man had a heart attack, which he could have had if he'd run for a bus and tripped and the common assault (whether justified or not) has turned into a world of shit for one individual officer, for the Metropolitan Police who, overall still policed that day well, and for the poor victim's nearest and dearest.
 

For what it's worth here's my input. The problem with establishing a cordon and moving through a crowd is that you are given a point to clear and if someone doesn't want to go or they are being deliberately belligerent (which may or may not be the case) then you have to use force, you can't f&ck about with negotiation with every single person to ask them ever so nicely if they would possibly perhaps consider moving. Please. In a public order situation Police officers are there as a level of force, we're not community Policing and the rules are different, even if most people (including me in some cases) disagree strongly with that.

I've had to clear crowds back outside clubs and people deliberately stand with their back to you so you have to push them - then you have a nice vid of a Police officer using force against someone who wasn't doing anything and wasn't even facing them, and yes a few people have been thrown or fallen over and probably sustained at least bruising but it comes down to justifiable use of force which can be investigated later if necessary, as in this case.

The same happens with public order situations like G20, experienced demonstrators know what looks good on camera (like holding their hands up in the air whilst kicking officers in the legs and groin off camera to provoke a reaction, like we had at Sipson a couple of years ago and at the climate camp on the wednesday night) and you really don't know who or what you've got so you have to follow your training and established tactics, which appears to be the case.

I'm not going to rush to judgement on this one because I have been in exactly that situation before, there was escalation of force from pushing, to a baton strike to a shield strike and we don't know what happened immediately prior to the video, if anything. I've done it lots of times as has anyone who has worked a decent public order incident, I just hope that the officer who put the strikes in wrote his statement up afterwards and I've just seen on sky that the officer has contacted the IPCC directly.

I saw what happened after Mr Tomlinson had collapsed where a female approached a serial and medics were sent in, had numerous items thrown at them and then them casevacing him to the paramedics. There will undoubtedly be more videos, possibly including CCTV or photographs so we'll have to wait for the IPCC investigation to finish.

Paul Bradford - I don't know which force you were in or if you were recently public order trained but the blue vests don't denote supervisor, they are evidence gathers or fit officers.

Anon 0702 - Take the foil hat off, there weren't any soldiers on duty, they were all Police officers and again, the officer has come forward. Re different weapons, I very much doubt you hold the full catalogue of all the weapons issued by firearms departments to Police officers, SFO's have access to a considerably cache of weapons for different purposes outside of the standard Glock and MP5.

Re the Hayley Adamson incident, the boyfriend was tasered after apparently attacking the officers, others were forced back after bricks were thrown. Her death is extremely tragic and the officer has today been found guilty of death by dangerous and I have no doubt will be spending the next few years in prison. With the offence being aggravated by being a Police officer, and by the speed and lack of warning equipment, if he doesn't get close the maximum sentence of 14 years I'll be very surprised.
 

What I find amazing is that now the Police Officer is immediately guilty.

Where are the champions of liberty demanding innocent until proven guilty?

Or is that if you wear a uniform then you are no longer equal and are therefore unable to enjoy the same rights and privileges as others?
 

Please look closely at the original video. The officer is distinctive in dress and the style of uniform and is easy to notice. Two horiz. stripes on body and three on arms. Jacket short. Face covered. No epaulettes but long sleeves. Trousers in at ankles.

You can see the officer first beyond the bikes at 14 seconds. You can see the long strides and leading foot as they turn around the dog.

At 25 seconds clearly visible going for the man from beyond the black dog. You might walk oddly with two dogs at your legs. He has no idea that the officer is behind him with their stick over shoulder height.

At 26 seconds clearly reacting to police officer to his left. Head turns.

The officer with the black dog takes 3 seconds to walk away as the maniac officer attacks.

At 38 seconds the maniac officer has not followed through. They are now looking the other way with no idea of the implications of their actions. The second dog handler is looking after the dog. All officers had full sight of fall.

As for the poor mans slow walking. It might come as a shock to some of you but there are a lot of us with severe fear of the police. Justified by past innocent contacts. The man was trying to go home. A large group of police move down the street towards him. So he stands in a defenceless stance (hands in pockets, eyes down and alone) hoping that the Police are going past to intervene in the argument shown at the start of the video.

But then the Police did what they do from my experience they targeted the easy target. How was he to know that rabble of police was to form up exactly where he stood. They did not move as a line and gave no indication of their intentions from a distance.

Even both dogs simultaneous action on a obviously older person was disgraceful. The maniac attack, in a wide apart, bent legged, posture towards the back of a older man is completely out of control.

This is from the released video. But then the police need to understand that we judge them from what is available.

As you alienate me more, I will do more to avoid the Police. Therefore, I will never meet the good officers. So my experience is only bad events, when your actions affect my innocent daily activities. You will then need more and more DNA and intercepts as no one will actually help you. The husband of a friend is still fighting his arrest when he handed in an object he found in the course of his job. It is time to take a step back and re-build the police from scratch. Any convictions here are meaningless.
 

If you turn on your lights to turn around and catch up you risk the suspect fleeing before you can get close. If you try and sneak up on them you should have had your lights on.

Guaranteed the courts will be tougher on him than they are on criminals.
 

Xiphos - he had his headlights on, it was the lack of blues and audible equipment coupled with the speed in a residential area that the court and jury deemed dangerous - he wasn't in "stealth mode" and going 90mph in the dark with nothing but engine noise as a potential giveaway as the 'lack of lights' suggests.
 

Leaving aside this specific incident it is easy to see why officers on such events get frustrated. I watched Sky News and saw a small number of officers forced to be incredibly restrained in the face of very violent individuals for a period of nearly 20 mins. None of these officers wore protective headgear and there was a reason why, the bosses didn't want to appear aggressive. They also didn't have the numbers. Why? because the bosses chose to send lots of serials to guard Obama and the 19 other world leaders and left them exposed. I have also over the years seen officers more willingly resort to batons, spray and other techniques such as knee strikes, why? They have been completely been let down by the criminal justice system which used to protect them and severely punish those that attack them. They have no faith in the courts anymore and percieve that to hold the line they have to resort to harsher methods against those who more willingly oppose them without fear of real sanction. This government reaps what it sows.
 

These two cases show what a fine line we tread, every day of the year.

As for the G20 incident, I know I've been there and done the same. What people fail to realise is that in public order situations, tactics are different to normal everyday situations. It is about taking ground, just as the army do in war. As a previous poster said, you can't dilly dally asking people if they wouldn't mind moving along. You have to dominate everyone, quickly and with purpose. If you don't, you risk any crowd turning on you. For all the armchair critics, that can be very scary. Hence, you have to be 'aggresive' to clear the streets. That doesn't mean we have a carte-blanche right to assault whoever we want. On the face of it the officer seems to have over reacted. However, we don't know if Mr Tomlinson had been 'moved on' earlier and was being beligerently slow. It is obviously a sad loss of life and my sympathy goes to his family. Lets wait for all the evidence to come to light, before the hangman is employed.


As for the fatal collision, I have viewed the video on the BBC site. As a trained Police driving instructor, I would have to say that the speed is excessive. It matters not whether he had lights or sirens going. They don't give you the right to drive dangerously. At 91mph, you are travelling at 40 metres per second. In a built up area in the dark, that is far too fast. Whilst we all want to apprehend the bad guys, is it worth the risk? Obviously not. This case just goes to show what can happen to innocent members of the public and also police officers.

As an aside, what a burke AC Bob Quick is! Don't they have manilla folders in Scotland Yard?
 

I'm a person who has some sympathy with the protesters at the G20, though to be honest, they've not really got much idea what they'd have instead, other than "replace capitalism with something nicer".

That said, what really grates on me is the difference in the media coverage between 'heroic police bottled as they battle to reach dying man, as I think the express headline was, and is pretty much said here in the Daily Mail), which refers to Mr Tomlinson as "shaven headed", wearing a "Millwall FC football shirt" (i.e. someone that the mail thinks is a violent nasty type)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165669/Love-hate-Brown-Obama-enjoy-special-relationship--man-dies-violence-explodes-streets.html

Then when the footage turns up later, and it turns out the man wasn't even a protester, the coverage shifts tack to what 'evil b******s' the police are.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/G20-tragedy-Damning-new-film-shows-riot-officers-beat-man-times-died.html

Clearly, the officer in question shouldn't have done it, but it's not hard to see that things like this will happen from time to time at large scale demonstrations, especially ones where the papers have been building up the possibility of violence for days beforehand, just to fill up space.

So really, I find it all very sad, but the reporting on the case was frankly abysmal, and is surely just likely to give grief to poor Mr Tomlinson's family, just because the papers saw a chance to tickle their respective readership's prejudices.

On the road collision case, I used to live near there and drove down that road on occasion. The notion that you could safely do 90 down it even if you were police trained is downright stupid. Not having lights/sirens on and driving like that, seems far worse than the case of shoving a man over in the middle of a large public order operation. Clearly if the officer couldn't catch him in the car, he should have just let him go, rather than become a risk to life himself.
 

On the face of it its difficult to mitigate the officers actions in pushing Mr Tomlinson over. But thats on the face of it. We'll have to see what comes out of the investigation. That said, the officer and the job are in a no win situation. If evidence does to come to light to justify his actions there will be calls of a white wash. If there is none, then the police are murderers (again)!

The baton strike looked text book which made me wonder if the officer was an instructor of some kind?

As for the traffic officer, its a sad day all round. I'm not advanced trained and can't comment on the thresholds for the type of driving undertaken and displayed.

I'm sure however that the officer will like many others have gone to work to keep people a little safer. He appears to have made an error of judgement with horrendous consequences for many people.

He now has to live with the death of someone for the rest of his life, the end of his career, a criminal conviction, the loss of his liberty for a considerable period of time and all that goes with that in terms of family and children. If he'd gone guilty no doubt he'd be looking at a custodial sentence too. If he really felt he'd been driving safely, however, misguided the experts suggest, then he's paid a heavy, and some may say appropriate price.

Personally speaking, I feel it doesn't bring the young lady back, and he will have no doubt prevented many serious injuries and deaths on our roads, not to mention criminal acts during his career. I hope that is taken into consideration with the sentence. I don't know if he has children, but for my mind depriving another family of a loved one for many many years achieves nothing.

Will this alter the way fully trained and acredited drivers drive? I'm not sure. There have been a spate of class 1 / 2 advanced drivers convicted recently, and by definition until the accident occured, they felt they were capable of driving safely and with good judgement. They are the best we have.

Its not the same as laying down a heavy sentence for burglars or car thieves to deter them. We ask our officers to protect us from criminals, get our cars back, prevent them from endangering us on the road by catching them and of course get to us quickly when we or our loved ones need help. Until something goes tragically wrong they feel they can do that safely. The penalty for an error of judgement may just be too high when compounded together.

Of course someone has lost a daughter forever. They are right to want justice. But justice shouldn't and can't be emotionally based. It should reflect the severity of the crime and mitigating or agravating factors. Yet all too often we punish severely the ordinary members of the public and people like police officers and authority figures. Frequent offenders get chance after chance after chance. Why is that? Why can't we use common sense?

Finally, before someone asks how would I feel if it were my child killed by a speeding police car, no blues and twos etc, the answer is I just dont know. But I would want to meet the officer, I would want to see how he feels and yes I'd want to see all the evidence. I hope I'd have the good grace to weigh up all the circumstances and evidence to reach my own common sense conclusion on what justice looks like, and that may of course take some years.

There are no winners here. Its a mistake with the most serious of consequences. I've no doubt many of us have been in situations or taken actions which as events unfolded could have gone very wrong, some tragically. When we look back on that would we do things differently? Of course? Maybe? We have that luxury,this officer doesn't.

We dont have to agree. We just have to understand that not all mistakes need the person making them to suffer any more than they already are.
 

Anon 1012 - I take it when you say 'things like this' you mean someone getting a shove and possibly falling over? If so this doesn't happen occasionally at large demos/protests/riots, it happens ALL the time.

A Police line moving forward, someone walking slowly - most of the time in a deliberate act of belligerence or active non co-operation - is told to move (by everyone because we shout it out, its VERY far from silent) they don't, they get a shove and sometimes fall over. The only reason it's been highlighted is because he had a heart attack and sadly died. It is a trained tactic, a Police cordon is a use of force and has to be heavy handed in order to dominate the situation. If we don't dominate it then someone else will, do the public REALLY want that?

I have no doubt the officer is going to be crucified for this, certainly by the public and media, probably by the courts, and if that's the case then I can see a huge number of officers handing their public order cards in. We all volunteer for all training and specialist posts beyond normal foot patrol and we don't get paid any more for it beyond the potential for overtime. Unless they are going to make high levels of training mandatory (on threat of being sacked) then we're going to lose a lot of experienced officers who will simply refuse to do it.
 

Slow walking? de mendez was running.
What speed is required not to get attacked/killed by coppers?
 

That officer was definitely out of line.

The violence of that attack was unwarranted and he should never be allowed to wear a police uniform again.
 

MCM, I fail to see how pushing Mr. Tomlinson over in front of a police line is clearing an obstruction. While I would like the police to maintain order I am starting to question the cost. There is more than one way of maintaining order; I don’t remember seeing any footage of rioters outside the Israeli embassy being thrown out of the way. I don’t remember any of the protesters in Luton being struck from behind. Yet there are numerous accounts (some very biased) of the police acting in a heavy handed manner and assaulting non-violent protestors and those unable to move. Considering the fact that the eyewitness accounts now seem to be supported by video and the police press releases have been shot to pieces, tell me which I should believe?


Joseph K.
 

Dear MCM,

May I dare suggest that you are doing police PR no favours. The time is appropriate to leave IPCC to a full investigation and what criminal charges, if any, brought by CPS.
 

The lot of you are scum. The police need to be disbanded. There is no place in the world for evil people like you. You should all use what remaining honour you have and commit suicide. You are a disgrace to the whole of humanity.
 

The issue isnt that these things happen, the issue is that when they do, the first instict is to try and deny it happened or brush it under the carpet.
 

"Unless they are going to make high levels of training mandatory (on threat of being sacked) then we're going to lose a lot of experienced officers who will simply refuse to do it."

Gordon Bennett, is this what the police have come to? "Don't make us do any real policing because we don't like it and we'll leave"

Here's a good idea - use the fastest possible means to identify *every* policeman who prefers to cower in an office and fire the useless shites.

The remaining real policemen and the taxpayers can share out the savings between them.

It's notable the the coppers who are leaving the country seem to be doing it not to avoid the streets but to avoid the offices - perhaps that's because of the low-grade company they find in the offices.
 

MCM: "Unless they are going to make high levels of training mandatory (on threat of being sacked) then we're going to lose a lot of experienced officers who will simply refuse to do it."

Can you not just be ordered to go and stop a riot by senior officers, and sacked if you refuse?
 

MCM, I have just seen another piece of video that contradicts the police account of Mr. Tomlinson’s death. Rather than attacking the police, the protestors trying to help are moved away, while Mr. Tomlinson is left on the ground without attention, it has been claimed numerous times that the girl being moved away is a medical student who might have been able to help, and that one policeman refused to speak to the ambulance service. Also notable is the lack of missiles and rather than police controlling a hostile crowd, it is a couple of protestors who take control move and move the crowd back. The police at the scene concentrate on standing in a cordon and looking hard in their riot gear.
In reference to your previous question, as to whether the public would be better of without the police, if the police are as effective as those in the video, yes we probable are.


Joseph K.
 

Let's have no more of this "shove" obfuscation - latest video from a different angle shows that thug swinging his baton with full force from head height. There is a lot of downplaying going on of what was at best a vicious criminal assault.

Over the last 30 years, the Police have become less of a public servant representative of the civil population with close, cooperative contact on the streets, and more of a sealed off and paramilitary organisation used to enforce the will of the government. How did this happen? The Miners' Strike seems to be a key event.

I shall be 43 years old this year, and I'm genuinely confused and saddened about this; I grew up respecting the Police but having witnessed for myself the way they behave today I despise them. I'm afraid to say that for the most part they are arrogant, swaggering, dishonest bullies, hiding behind their uniform, convinced they are above the law. The phrase "a few bad apples" is constantly being bandied about, but it is perhaps more accurate to talk of "a few good apples" ... I'm sorry if this causes offence, but that's the view from the Clapham omnibus =/
 

"The lot of you are scum. The police need to be disbanded. There is no place in the world for evil people like you. You should all use what remaining honour you have and commit suicide. You are a disgrace to the whole of humanity.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 1:28 PM, April 09, 2009"

Quite the most puerile post thus far, where it not such a tragic event under discussion, I would laugh at you because you show yourself to be a fool.

I thumb my nose at you....

Jurgen
 

I haven`t done a 'grassy-knoll' style frame by frame analysis but..

My gut reaction is the strike with the baton was uncalled for, disproportianate is the official terminology I think.

Take away the uniform and the G20, then put yourself in role of either the striker or the struck.

What`s going through your head?

The wheel really is coming off just lately, part of the government plot to undermine public confidence in the police by various means I suspect. Meanwhile their poster and paper campaign about the policing pledge make them look like they`re really organised and on top of things.

Dangerous times.
 

Well how the case develops. The Daily Mail claims that Tomilinson was not merely on his way home but had been making a nuisance of him for some time. The daily express video shows that the stike to the back of the legs was hardly what you would call full blooded, on the drunk man who was walking very slowly in front of barking police dogs. Most people conclude that he was drunk. Now, what do you do?
 

how do you avoid getting attacked by the police?

back to them - get attacked

back to them, hands in pockets - get attacked

for anyone who thinks this is ok, what if it was you or yours?

You know those no go areas, where cops don't go unless they're in force. Actions like this are alienating everyone, and those no go areas will expand massively, and people will look at all cops the same.
 

"...the drunk man who was walking very slowly in front of barking police dogs. Most people conclude that he was drunk. Now, what do you do?"

Make sure your hoody and scarf are hiding your face, beat him with a blunt implement from behind then shoulder barge him to the ground, afterwards walking off smugly and ignoring his distress and discomfort.

Wait a minute - isn't that the behaviour the Police are supposed to be protecting us from?? What a topsy-turvy world we live in, eh? Maybe the next time a drunk guy is in my way on the pavement walking home I should beat the shit out of him, and then tell Mr. Plod that I was using reasonable force.
 

I have also read the latest about Ian Tomlinson not doing as he was told earlier and had to be forcibly moved out of the way of a van. The police attempted to move him a few times without force but Tomlinson refused. Im sorry but is that not a bit stupid on Mr Tomlinson's part? Oh and he was an alcoholic and drunk at the time.
Meanwhile, apparently he originally died 'minutes' after being shoved/hit. Now it seems those minutes are nearly 1.5 hours. Hardly 'minutes' is it?

In the cold light of day, I believe that the full evidence will come out as it did with PC Mulhall (RIP) and Toni Comer in Sheffield.

Of course any sane person would be very sad that Mr Tomlinson died. However, I wish that the left/media would not portray him as completely innocent. In a highly charged situation, people do make mistakes. But selective journalism will help nobody.

I can understand the anger that Mr Tomlinson's family feel against the police. However, I believe that at this stage they are being fed one-sided evidence as to the events of his death. I dont know the cirumstances why Mr Tomlinson didnt live with his family but it was probably because of his alcoholism. I hope that the family kept in contact with him before his death.

I detest the media as they often like to push out sensationalist headlines, only to have to recant on what they have said later when the full evidence has come out. But hey, it sells doesnt it? After the Mulhall/Comer incident died down (because the media realised that actually PC Mulhall did a bloody good job restraining a violent woman), PC Mulhall died a few months later. A headline I read was ' Policeman seen hitting young woman is dead'. Notice it didnt say 'Policeman doing his job restraining a violent woman is dead'
 

Dear Coppersblog team,

Those of you editing the blog today are clearly revelling in goading and provoking the public in a manner to which the latter have sadly become accustomed.

It is in the mutual interest of government, public and decent police to identify the culpable at the earliest opportunity. On the assumption that editors are UK serving police, I have lodged an official complaint with IPCC.
 

"had been making a nuisance of him for some time"

So his work mate says when he left the stand. They tracked his walking route and then he dies.

Does not give much time to be a "nuisance".

Look at the actual distance and the location of the stand and the place he lived. It is a no brainer, he was just annoyed at being blocked getting home.

Just because he walks oddly with 2 dogs at his ankles does not prove that he was drunk. He certainly had the ability to walk a fair distance.

Now he is dead.

Look at the pictures on flickr of the isolated man being attacked by 2 dogs that bit his arm. It is under "TwoThumbsFresh" G20 Police Actions-1510, G20 Police Actions-1524 and G20 Police Actions-1532. It is the same dogs and handlers as 50 seconds into the original video on www.guardian.co.uk.

Was this group out dog baiting or crowd control? It seems they are never near crowds!
 

7.20 + 1.5 hours is nearly 9pm.

I think there might be some evidence like the availability of the sun to disprove this. Wake up.
 

Oh dear, it's all starting to unravel now isn't it? The poor innocent family man who was merely on on his way home from work appears to have been there for nearly an hour and a half. Police had to deal with him on more than one occassion. His family had disowned him "right up to the potential compensation claim" and a mere few drinks after work would appear to have been a miracle for an apparent chronic alcoholic. Still well worth a few years in jail for the poor coppers who had to deal with him
 

Dr Melvin T Gray, throws his teddy out of the pram....lol

Hey this website is for you:
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=13291062579467354272
 

I don't think that was Melvin. The language used wasn't nearly as pretentiously florid and hilarious as his usual efforts.
Dr Gray, have you been a victim of identity fraud? You should contact the police....
 

All I have to say is poor unfortunate bloke.

That is for both parties btw.

1. The cop will be beside himself with guilty and worry. He obviously did not mean for the bloke to die, he may have been heavy handed but he did not lay into him on the ground as though he ment him any real harm.

2. Mr Thomlinson is dead and that is very sad.

Both are unfortunate victims of circumstance and all I can see is that a man will go to prison for a rash descion when all he wanted to do was his job and a poor member of the public is dead. Just like the PC Doogle case.

Another nail in the coffin of British Society. Makes me realise its not worth it. Let the fuckers fight their own battles. Iam now going drive slowly no matter who is being burgled / robbed / raped and going to chuck my PSU kit in.

Recent events have shown that if it goes well the Boss is a hero, when it goes tits up (in the immortal words of the Rev. of Rockridge). "SON, YA ON YA OWN".

PC A. HUNN
 

"Iam now going drive slowly no matter who is being burgled / robbed / raped"

I would be pleased if you would. Current situation is that you must drive infinitely slowly as you never turn up at all for those crimes.

So this would be an improvement.
 

"The poor innocent family man who was merely on on his way home from work appears to have been there for nearly an hour and a half. Police had to deal with him on more than one occassion. His family had disowned him "right up to the potential compensation claim" and a mere few drinks after work would appear to have been a miracle for an apparent chronic alcoholic. Still well worth a few years in jail for the poor coppers who had to deal with him"

Good grief, do you actually read what you've typed before hitting the submit button? Were you perhaps drunk yourself when releasing that stream-of-consciousness? Or are you simply some some reactionary, IQ-challenged thug who has no concept of what the "police" are actually supposed to be doing (ie a police constable yourself)?

Not a single one of those "facts" you present above excuses the actions of the cowardly thug hiding his face and epaulettes when he assaulted Tomlinson from behind. And if you think they do, and if any copper thinks they do, then it's a sad day for society.

Orwell warned us "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever..."

Welcome to the future.
 

As an ex-copper myself and a serving prison officer, i have always supported the police and try to tell people how difficult the job can be. But, there is simply no justification for hitting someone who is walking away from you with their hands in their pockets. The officer responsible is a disgrace to his uniform, and i find it difficult to understand why the others did not do anything. I certainly would not stand and just watch this sort of thing happen.
We all make mistakes, but i never believed i was above the law or did not have to answer to it.
This will do terrible damage to the image of the police, especialy if the officer goes un-punished.
 

The fisrt video in the story below puts the officer in a much better context. He can be seen arriving after the dog handlers and appears to be part of a different serial. He only sees Tomlinsom for a second and sees that he is standing in front of the police dogs who are being restrained. At this point Tomlinson becomes a problem because he is either going to get bitten by the dogs or have to be moved away from them. One strike with a baton and a push away. Sounds fairer now. Perhaps he was one of the officers who'd dealt with him prevousily. As for the hiding the numbers bits, I think he's wearing a white flash...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/G20-policeman-suspended-new-pictures-reveal-victims-drunken-clash-officers-shortly-collapsed.html
 

"One strike with a baton and a push away. Sounds fairer now."

Say what? Absolute bollocks, since when has a strike with a baton been a fair way to speed up a slow moving pedestrian?? How about issuing the rozzers with cattle prods instead, like in all those South American police states?

"Tomlinson becomes a problem because he is either going to get bitten by the dogs or have to be moved away from them"

So try to make his legs buckle under him by striking him hard with a baton and then shoulder barge him to the ground instead when that fails. To prevent him being injured... As for "moving him on", it seems like they moved him on merely the distance he fell.

You keep telling yourself it's all above board and legit, sunshine. The rest of us don't eat that shit, though.
 

Sadly I worked with the Met TSG during the climate camp at heathrow and they did nothing but play pratical jokes on other forces, drive about playing banjo music out of their loudhailers to wind up the county forces and openly letch at females in the area. I left and joined said county force. This does not surprise me one bit. Not professional, out of control, elitist, sexist, violent and in need of disbanding like the the old special patrol group. They love a ruck and this proves it 100%
 

A few weeks ago Notts police were expecting trouble at the match between Nottingham Forest and Derby as the fans have a "history of violence" - They were out in force with dogs and vans etc. I approached several and asked if I could take some photographs of them doing their job. Three or four pretended they could not hear me. One looked like he'd like to smash his baton into my teeth (the squadie look with his war face on) and another smiled and chatted with me about stuff...and we had a laugh.

That about sums it up - Our police services are happy to recruit people who have poor social skills and want to get stuck in. Why? Because at times they are needed. And then we complain when they act as everyone knows they are more likely to act that way than other officers who are more socially skilled. Perhaps these “secret weapon” officers need to be kept on a leash like the Alsatians and only let off when the public have really asked for trouble?
 

I didn't say speeding up. But he is refusing to move away from the dogs. He knows exactly what he is doing. The officer sees this breifly and momentarily. IMO he makes a decision to strike Tomlinson to get him to move away from the dogs. He then pushes him away. I think the decision to use force is more proportionate here. The outcome can never be judged to a niciety.
 

Will and anon 0404 - I never said anything about wanting to sit in an office and do sod all did I? What I said was unless they make higher level skills mandatory then if we get constantly crucified or get zero back up from the job for doing things as trained then volunteers will stop volunteering because we get absolutely nothing but grief for doing it. Everything above normal foot patrol and level 3 public order (most basic level) are voluntarily held skills. This includes driving, firearms, specialist search, CBRN, higher level public order, underwater search, rapid entry, cycling, rope access, even being a detective.

If everyone stops volunteering then the system will completely fall apart, but hey, at least the public will get all the Police officers walking around as we are constantly told that they want, we just won't be getting anywhere quickly or dealing with anything that requires anything more than foot patrol or standing in a cordon. Maybe this could be the return to complete grass roots that we need and start again from scratch? who knows. If this officer is completely thrown to the wolves as I very strongly suspect he will be then the implications for public order tactics and training will be massive and they simply cannot stay as they are because huge numbers of people will stop volunteering to do it as it is.

Joseph K - As one of my colleagues said last night when we were talking about this at work, you're given a tasking to clear the entire street, that includes everyone. If they don't move, they get moved even if they, or you, think they shouldn't because they aren't really causing a problem just standing there. Public order Policing IS NOT community Policing, there are no individuals as we work as a unit, and we simply can not take the time to deal with every single person on an individual basis and ask them each and every time we want to do something, they all do it.

Dr Melv - Worrying about PR and how things look instead of how or why things do or do not work is exactly why we are in this situation in the first place. Somethings we do look really bad (often intentionally so, others just because there really is no nice way to handcuff someone struggling violently or shoot someone) somethings look nice and fluffy and are invariably useless, such as council meetings. It's Policing not bloody kindergarten.
 

"Public order Policing IS NOT community Policing, there are no individuals as we work as a unit,"

Explain how there are many photographs on the web now of those dog handlers and at no time does the officer in question appear.

That officer was alone and is seen clearly following Ian Tomlinson after the incident. Look at the end of the video. The officer is acting independantly and purposely staying away from all other police in the area.

So where was the officer's unit? Or anyone in similar kit.
 

Why was the Officer hiding all the features that could easily identify him?

Perhaps because he was part of the TSG and was up for a bit of trouble and did not want to get identified. Only problem because it is so serious he has been found. I wonder if he was ex forces?

So the quickest way to move someone on is to hit them on the leg so they collapse/cannot walk or then push them to the floor. Why not just have a line of people with shields forming a barrier that moves forward along with vans slowly.
 

anon 1104 there were several dog unit officers, a couple of FIT officers and TSG PSU serial of which the officer was with all clearly visible in the photographs? do you think he was just wondering about aimlessly waiting for some one to hit or something?
 

re: HALYEY ADAMSON

While i do not condone the speed the officer was traveling at would it be fair to ask the following points?

1) why was the anpr activated?

2) what was hayely adamsons blood achol level and or any illegal substances?

i am not at all defending the actions of this pc i understand that he made a grave error of judgment and for which he will be punished, i just feeel that having the following info would answer a lot of peoples questions.
 

More distraction by the apologisers... It's ALWAYS someone else's fault, right? NEVER the copper's fault. At 94 mph the idiot had become a passenger in his own vehicle, as someone described it. Blood alcohol level, my a*** The only question that needs answering is how many more like him there are still on the streets living out their testosterone-fuelled fantasies in high-performance police cars?
 

anon 1115. No, I think it was far more sinister.
 

To anon 10.38PM yesterday:

"...throws his teddy out of the pram..."

Ouch! A well aimed hit requiring Nursey. Lol, Mel.
 

Screw it, we Police should have just let the rioters smash all of London up. Then who'd be complaining? The rioters would have killed a few innocents, a few of them selves to boot and caused a few billion pounds in damage. Maybe those persons who post such comments about police over reacting, being heavy handed etc should don a police uniform and try to quell a riot. Have fun!
 

"Screw it, we Police should have just let the rioters smash all of London up."

Argumentum ad ridiculum. A ridiculously poor attempt by a policeman to divert attention from a crime committed by a policeman. Same old story. I didn't see any footage of Tomlinson smashing up London, rioting, setting things on fire, or attacking anybody. Are you saying that vicious attacks on innocent passers-by are justified just because there was trouble elsewhere, elsewhen?

If that's the thought process of "you" police, then God help us all.
 

How problem would oriented policing deal with the problem of violent officers? Look at where they are and what is the root cause of the problem. Recruitment is a good place to begin. Training? Procedure? A belligerent public with no respect for the police?
 

Bearing in mind that this is going to be still under investigation in a month, how is this going to affect policing on May Day?
 

Even our own PM refuses to shake the hands of a police officer
http://lobbydog.thisisnottingham.co.uk/2009/04/brown-snubs-copper.html
 

"Oh dear, it's all starting to unravel now isn't it? The poor innocent family man who was merely on on his way home from work appears to have been there for nearly an hour and a half."
Anonymous 10:04 PM, April 09, 2009

Duh, well yes. He was there for an hour and a half because the police wouldn't let him go home. Fancy somebody wanting to go home after finishing work. Fancy him acting as if he lived in a free country. He obviously deserved a whack (not).
Pray tell us anonymous (10:04), what is the purpose of those batons? Is it for the police to use in self-defence or is it to give somebody a whack when they don't give enough "respect" to people like yourself? (I suspect you're a copper-but not of the old school who really had and deserved the public's respect).

AngryDave(9:37) and anonymous((10:24) hit the nail right on the head, especially about the Metropolitan police. I used to respect and support the police but now, after 20 years growing disillusionment, I wouldn't have anything to do with them if I could help it. To put it bluntly I'm afraid of them and I'm a law-abiding citizen. I'm sure there are many decent officers around but there's no way of telling who they are before you deal with them. The "service" can no longer be trusted to treat the public properly and not as the enemy. They seem to see it as their job to serve the government (New Labour's idea) and not the people (Sir Robert Peel's idea).

Have a look at this story and bear in mind that at one time, it was only countries like Soviet Russia or Ceacescu's Romania that used to arrest people for taking photographs in a public place.

Brian Ginnity

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/apr/08/police-civil-liberties
 

PS If the link above doesn't work, the article is by Henry Porter in the Guardian (not my usual reading matter) and is entitled "Abuse of Police Powers is Unexceptional"

PPS-To Metcountymounty-You've written some thoughtful posts here but to this MOP, nothing you've said justifies that policeman hitting Mr Tomlinson from behind. There was no self-defence involved.

Brian Ginnity
 

Here's your link, Brian.
 

It is interesting to note the officer who struck Mr. Tomlinson immediately retired to stand behind his colleagues. Is that because he is a bully and a coward?
Whatever happened before this incident Mr. Tomlinson appeared to be no threat. The officer is innocent until proven guilty but to my eyes he committed an assault. Were he a member of the public he'd be arrested.
 

He stands behind his colleasuges cos when you're working with dogs that's what you do. You go forward to clear people resisitng the dogs and then you get behind the dogs. Simples
 

Is it just me that doesn't wish to pre-judge this sort of incident ? Surely, the sensible (and right) way to deal with is incident is to gather all available evidence and then make a decision ? Attempting to second-guess the motives of the officer concerned or what the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson was actually doing at the time is just a complete waste of time. Establish the facts and then decide what should be done. If there is evidence of a criminal offence by the officer concerned, charge them to court.
As for the Guardian contributor's "piece" - I wonder what his reaction would be to somebody filming him on their mobile telephone when he is going about his work ? Must try it sometime....
 

Well it's odd then that his colleagues didn't retire behind the dogs. In any event Mr. Tomlinson was no threat to any of them and even if he was being obstructive or mischievous the force used was excessive.
 

Had Mr tomlinson not died, and had there been no CCTV or video footage of the incident, this would have just gone away, no doubt.

I just wonder how many other police actions such as the one which downed Mr Tomlinson took place on that day.

This incident reinforces the view of many members of the public that the police are now an elitist, paramiltary force who have "been enabled" to be nothing more than swaggering bullies.

We need hard coppers, we need them to deal with hard and difficult situations.

We don't need bullies who are only going to widen the gulf that already exists between the law-abiding members of society and the police.

RIP Mr Tomlinson.
 

Metcountymounty Public order Policing IS NOT community Policing

Inspector Chris McDermott of WM Police who also trains Staffordshire, Warwickshire and West Mercia in tonight's newspaper article on public order policing said "Officers dealing with public order in 2009 need to have all the qualities of a good neighbourhood police officer. They have to show a level of force that is proportionate to what they face". "They are the ones who have to go back into community afterwards to carry on normal policing" (except the TSG who don't of course).

Hence by the very fact you think it is not neighbourhood policing shows you are not getting the message from the training.
 

Every man, woman and their dogs have an opinion on this incident. But they should all keep them to themselves.

Whilst the investigation is ongoing it is unfair for this to be talked about so much as it is likely that those investigating will already have their opinions tainted by the media coverage.

Nothing should be given to the media until after the inquiry is complete. However, once the enquiry is complete everything should be made available to the public so they can see that it is a fair procedure, what ever the outcome.

A Serving Officer
 

I do not understand all this concern about pre-judging a situation from the videos and photos.

That is what we want from officers. They have to pre-judge an incident with even less to go on: no video replays or hind sight.

They have to get it right. Death sentences are not reversible. So looking back at the video, and commenting is perfectly valid. If it is obvious with a replay, then at the time it should have been a certainty NOT to not attack. There was no immediate danger, or heavy crowd presence. The video and photos show a very isolated man and a "domestic" in pinstripes, but no crowd. The approaching officers would have had the advantage of seeing this clearly. But we have to piece it together from the stills and 2 videos.

As for judges, convictions, and sentences, that is what the courts do to people. It is a it is a long term feedback, deterrent to others. The Police force does not get that luxury. They are convicted in the minds of the public on their handling of every situation. What happens as a result of this enquiry is irrelevant. The police sentence will be the lack of help when they need it in the future from the public. Your choice, keep going down the track of DNA, databases and documentation and ignore the public; and you will fail.

When I fail my customers, or they think I failed them, I immediately make a loss, getting them back on my side. Fly out and sit down with them, take a hit on the profits to offset their costs.

What "loss" would you stand to correct this situation. OR will you just wait for a "fall guy" and an inquiry. Everyone in that area was negligent in not stepping forward to correct the situation at the time. No one was willing to "take a loss" and keep the good will. Just lies and false information to the press. The poor man was irrelevant.
 

# posted by Anonymous : 12:59 PM, April 10, 2009

"Argumentum ad ridiculum. A ridiculously poor attempt by a policeman to divert attention from a crime committed by a policeman."

Latin? Hmm. Not trying to divert attention, just pointing out the basics.


"Same old story. I didn't see any footage of Tomlinson smashing up London, rioting, setting things on fire, or attacking anybody."

Nope, because the good old boys in blue were there to stop them.

"Are you saying that vicious attacks on innocent passers-by are justified just because there was trouble elsewhere, elsewhen?"

Vicious attacks? A push? Elsewhen isn't even a word. They were clearing the street.

"If that's the thought process of "you" police, then God help us all."

Quite. Thank God you're nothing to do with Polcing riots, otherwise there wouldn't be much of London left!
 

Well the answer to this is simple. Don't police the next demo or only deploy level 3 officers who withdraw at the first sign f trouble and let people get on with it. Meanwhile large sections of the public can refuse to call the police to sort out their marriages, malicious texts from ex-boyfriends, children who have gone missing again, to break down the door of ther elderly parents who they haven't visited for months, for when they drink too much and get involved in fights, when they can't control their kids who they've let smoke pot since they began to wear long trousers, etc, etc, etc

90% of our work would disappear. Our "customer" base would dry up and we'd be unemployed.
 

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/everything-is-going-to-be-alright/

A cracking piece from Inspector Gadget turning this whole subject on its head.
 

Further facts emerge in the hurriedly arranged post mortem on the late Mr Tomlinson.

A pathologist whose career was under the most extreme police pressure, was selected for the critical role. I await the customary restoration of police credibility following the customary week allowed by IPCC to organize the appropriate collusion, sorry, response.
 

Other than he was not the target of the assault and was reported leaving the house spluttering from CS gas inhalation. He also had heart disease.

Now that is rewriting history! Shame on you.
 

Here's your Gadget link, Cyril.
 

Interesting comments on the Gadget piece - primarily showing that the PC who died was not assaulted and pointing out that the guy initially and wrongly suspected of assaulting him was arrested for... murder.
 

Cyril Squirrel:

1."Latin? Hmm. Not trying to divert attention, just pointing out the basics"

No, you are "appealing to mockery" (which is the logical fallacy described by the Latin phrase) by saying that Tomlinson's death was acceptable "collateral damage" as part of the plan to protect property in London. And that we lowly MoPs should actually be thankful for your "heavy handedness". I call bullshit on both counts.

2. "Nope, because the good old boys in blue were there to stop them."

I was specifically referring to Tomlinson - where is your evidence that he was involved in rioutous behaviour or criminal wrongdoing?

3."Vicious attacks? A push? Elsewhen isn't even a word. They were clearing the street."

You neglect to mention the unprovoked baton strike - perhaps you didn't see it? It seems that serving members of the police have an inherent blind spot for this, and perhaps more rigid standards of eye testing/observational skills/ethics are called for. Vicious? Yes, if that had been a MoP hitting someone with a weapon, you'd have no hesitation at describing it as vicious and malicious. God help someone who inflicted a similar blow on a policeman...

Elsewhen is a word - you obviously have never studied Einstein's theory of relativity and its implications for the state(s) of the universe. I use it slightly out of its normal context in order to make a point. This is what we MoPs do when we construct responses - we don't have 2 or 3 colleagues sitting around us in the canteen to help us concoct our stories and spell out the big words for us.

Clearing the street? Then why did they remain at the same point? It seems that they were specifically clearing Tomlinson, and ventured no further down the street. Had they perhaps noticed the multiple cameras and cellphones trained upon them? That wasn't street clearing, that was singling out an individual for a slap.

4."Quite. Thank God you're nothing to do with Polcing riots, otherwise there wouldn't be much of London left!"

Twenty-five years ago, when Thatcher first began the process of buying out the police and converting them into the paramilitary wing of the state, an innocent woman calling for police assistance narrowly escaped death as a mounted policeman charged her and attempted to hit her in the head with his baton. She said of it, "That part was very, very disturbing. Because the police were actually having a very good time, they were enjoying this huge exercise of brutal authority, so I found that very disturbing."

Read the BBC article at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2009/03/02/lesley_boulton_orgreave_photo_feature.shtml

Policing hasn't improved since 1984, and neither have policemen. Your idea of policing riots is to stir up as much trouble as possible and then respond with maximum, even deadly if necessary, force. It is at best reckless. I would suggest you also read this article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/01/g20-policing-climate-protest-riot

which actually preceeded the Tomlinson story, but explains exactly what is wrong with "your" style of policing riots and why it actually ends up causing more damage and violence.

I remain convinced that - if you are an example of this country's police - there is no hope for the force. You are so convinced that you are superior to your employers (ie the public) whom you are supposed to serve, and so convinced that you need to "dominate" society and its citizens, law abiding as well as law breaking, that there is little chance in reforming the service. rather than puffing yourself up with false pride thast you somehow "saved" London, you should be hanging your head in shame at the behaviour of some of your colleagues and the subsequent dishonesty and lack of moral fibre exhibited by them.

Switching the story of PC Roberts, which you cling on to for dear life, Gadget is doing a disservice by spreading more disinformation and propaganda. Because he neglects to tell the truth: Scotland Yard's press release oin the matter was very clear - Roberts was "involved in effecting the arrest" of Savage "but had not been assaulted by him".

And yet, Savage was still arrested on suspicion of murder! We lowly MoPs can but presume this is a procedural act whenever a sudden death is investigated...

So why hasn't the same principle been applied to the unnamed coward from the TSG?
 

Your links, Anon 11:52:

BBC/Orgreave.


Guardian/Monbiot.

Off topic: We'd like to stick up the little bit of HTML which allows people to link directly to other sites - unfortunately, although we know the HTML (obviously) if we try to post it in a comment it itself converts to a link!

Anyone able to post something up on this?
 

Tell you what: visit any Samizdata thread, click on 'comments' and, at the bottom, there is a handy little guide to using HTML.

Here's a Samizdata comment thread, for instance.
 

There is no doubting IG's usual credentials as a fair and clever officer and immodest endorsement from JuliaM was unnecessary to support that which is universally agreed. I must begin with an acknowledgement that it is always sad to hear of anyone dying in the course of public duty yet I fail to see IG's normal impartiality manifest in his obvious comparison.

In the case of PC Roberts, the first big headlines claimed that a Mr Patrick Savage had been arrested at the scene of a domestic incident, on suspicion of the officer's murder. That was big news and of course we all felt outraged. Later reports claimed that the civilian had been arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. OK, so the incident was accurately reported but a charge of murder would not be upheld? Not quite.

When the truth finally emerged that a Mr Patrick Savage never assaulted the deceased officer, (who had sustained a heart attack and died of natural causes whilst on duty without being subject to physical violence), the tabloids rightly felt misled by the earlier police reports. A Scotland Yard spokesman, who later announced that PC Roberts had been "involved in effecting the arrest" but had not been assaulted by Patrick Savage, provided a clarification that once again, came too late.
 

Ref the comment above regarding the initial post mortem, here is a link to the details:

Pathologist in Ian Tomlinson G20 death case was reprimanded over conduct

Highlights: "[He] gave it as his opinion that the victim, a woman, had died of natural causes. A man who lived in the flat where the body was found went on to murder two other women and mutilate their bodies."

"A source with detailed knowledge of the IPCC investigation expressed surprise that the initial post mortem was referred to Dr Patel rather than the Forensic Pathology Services, a body of nine independent forensic pathologists, including Dr Cary, which usually deals with suspicious deaths in London and the home counties."

Bringing in a discredited "on side" quack to tick the boxes stinks of further whitewash and dishonesty. I don't know how detailed readers' knowledge of post mortems is, but I've seen a few, and they are, by their very nature, destructive of the "evidence". Tomlinson's heart will have been thoroughly dissected to search for signs of cardiac infarct, coronary narrowing etc. The skull will have been sawn open and the brain sliced. The whole side of his body that was presented to the copper with the baton will be almost black from the pooling of the blood in the body after death. Any potential injuries may be difficult to assess. A lot of "evidence" will no longer be there.

How fortunate for the Met.
 

The moe this goes on and the more the video gets showed on the TV and the more so-called experts that appear to comment on the legality or otherwise of it means that when this goes to trial the defences openign gambit must surely be, "Your Honour there is absolutely no way my client can have a fair trial."
 

@Blogger The Coppersblog Team 11:52:

To make a HTML link, type <a href="[link]">[description]</a>

Replace [link] with the link you want, and [description] with the test that you want to make the link.

To type < and > and not have them parse as HTML, type &lt; and &gt;

Going slightly recursive, to type an ampersand, and not have it register as a special character, type &amp;
 

Before these topics are concluded, I express my thanks, as I am sure others will, to the Coppersblog team for the subject material, their own restraint and efforts.

A demonstration of tolerance at a difficult time is particularly appreciated, along with the facilities and assistance provided to members of the public.
 

"Your choice, keep going down the track of DNA, databases and documentation and ignore the public; and you will fail".

So ALL of those people bought to justice for victims of rape/murder etc. by DNA were a waste of time then?

"When I fail my customers, or they think I failed them, I immediately make a loss, getting them back on my side. Fly out and sit down with them, take a hit on the profits to offset their costs".

FOR FCUKS SAKE - The Police Force IS NOT a business, stop trying to treat it as one. We are not here to make friends, we are here to enforce the law without malice or illwill. Our "customers" (?)are victims (well most of them).
I've said it before, let the police police and the politicians lie.
 

"...We are not here to make friends, we are here to enforce the law..."


And that's why it's all gone pear-shaped, because the police no longer understand their purpose. Your job is to uphold the law and prevent crime, NOT enforce (definition: "to impose obedience by, or as if by, force").

You don't have customers, victims or otherwise. You are servants of the public and the Crown.

There is an "us & them" situation, but it was constructed on your side. You alienated yourselves from the public, who, let's be frank, go out of their way to turn blind eyes to some of the more common excesses committed by the police, doing their own complex mental juggling to conclude that you were somehow justified, or under duress, or doing a difficult job, blah blah blah...

The sooner you start "serving" again and stop "enforcing", the sooner this country might return to the happier days where policing by consent actually worked... and policemen did consider it part of their job description to make friends with Joe and Jane Public...
 

Thank you Florence, I will remember that as I dodge bricks flying in both directions.

There can only be trouble in store for a deeply bifurcated society policed by a service no longer able to distinguish between well intentioned criticism and enemy attack.
 

In general, I support the police. I am a volunteer with the Ambulance Service. I know that my professional colleagues get stalwart support from the police and that, should the need arise, I could expect the same myself. My colleagues try to reciprocate.

However, I have read more BS on this topic than a little.

I don't think anyone of sound mind thinks the police were out to get Mr Tomlinson. Irrespective of this, the video clip apparently shows an act of unprovoked violence (baton strike) against a bloke who later died.

There may well be no connection between the apparent assault on Mr Tomlinson and his subsequent death. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc does not apply here.) It still does not excuse the baton strike to Mr Tomlinson, nor the subsequent shove.

What did it achieve in terms of public order?

Sometimes the police (ably led by the Met) are their own worst enemies.
 

"Anonymous" is getting boring. You can dribble out latin, and quotes from Einstein, and even worse the Guardian all you like.
The whole point of you doing that is to make yourself sound educated, superior etc. You clearly think that every cop is as thick as horse s*it and just run around smashing heads open. Many come from good, middle-class backgrounds, have degrees etc. Come into the real world, open your eyes and stop being so blind to the obvious.
You hate the Police, nothing I say, anyone else says, what you read or watch is going to change that. All I hope is that you don't need the cops for anything yourself, because that would be quite a kick in the teeth for you.
Luckily I know that you're not representative of 90% of the population, who we do have support and respect from.
 

That same Tomlinson video clip was recently broadcast across Canada on the C.B.C. national news. Needless to say, it did not place the British police in a most favourable light.

We have our own ongoing police inquiry where a dis-oriented Polish immigrant died after being tasered at the Vancouver International Airport. The circumstances of that event was also caught on a camera contradicting much of the responsible officers' testimony.

The "militarized" mind-set of some new cops appear to be driving a large wedge between the police and public and is better explained in this short essay by a former U.S. Sheriff.
 

"Luckily I know that you're not representative of 90% of the population, who we do have support and respect from."

Dream on, pal. Even before the Hayley Adamson and Ian Tomlinson cases only 46% of the public in England and Wales had confidence in the police (see the Home Office's "Public confidence in the Police and their local
partners: results from the British Crime Survey year ending September 2008".)

It is probably safe to say that the figure, this morning, is wildly optimistic.

As for posters boring you, oh dear. Put your fingers in your ears and start humming loudly. Maybe it will magically all go away!
 

To Anon @ 10:18:

Yes, so much is true and I reflect upon police vehemence returned to any form of criticism. Accusations of 'police hater' now fall so frequently and casually from the tongues of police, without any thought whatsoever. The label is as detestable as the disempowering accusation of 'racist, when it is a falsely played card in the last desperate attempt to win an otherwise lost argument.

There can be but few genuine police haters. Barring the most catastrophic experiences with police, the worst criminals have some friends in the service. There can be but few of us who have not experienced help from decent police officers. I can accept that the majority of the public no longer like the police; that is far removed from a loathsome description of 'hate'. To suggest that rationality has disappeared and the speaker's credibility can be dismissed by attaching the label 'police hater' is a very shallow, immoral practice.
 

This is nothing to do with "hating" police Mr Squirrel, and everything to do with insisting on police reform. June will be the 10th anniversary of HMICs report on "Police Integrity". It notes, "In a system of policing by consent, it is vital to have regular confirmation from all sections of the community that the traditional trust in the police is sustained. Trust depends on the strength of mutual understanding and respect between the police and the community they serve, and every time an individual officer behaves badly, public trust and confidence in the whole Service is affected...It is a
sad fact, however, that during 1997 well over 6,000 complaints of alleged rudeness and incivility were recorded. How police officers behave is very much a matter of personal integrity, and in an environment where bullying, arrogance, rudeness, racist or sexist behaviour is tolerated, corruption and other wrongdoing will flourish, and is more likely to remain unreported."

Your quote: "You clearly think that every cop is as thick as horse s*it and just run around smashing heads open."

is countered by an incident detailed in the above mentioned report which relates -

Two constables claimed that, whilst driving an unmarked car, they were stopped and confronted by a youth who was drunk, abusive and threatening. When the officers
advised him regarding his behaviour, he allegedly became violent and they had to use their batons to restrain him. By good fortune, the defence discovered a nearby video camera, the tape from which showed the youth had in fact been innocently walking home when the officers had called him over to their vehicle. When he bent down to speak, one of the officers squirted him in the face with a toy water pistol. The youth, not surprisingly, complained and the constables assaulted him with their batons.

Cameras - the policeman's worst enemy, so it would seem when trawling through the news of how many times they are caught out lying and assaulting people... Perhaps this explains the proliferation of "flame retardant" balaclavas worn with non flame resistant hi viz vests, and the new campaign by the police to zealously pursue anybody who dares to photograph them.
 

Whatever the events (to be determined) that preceded the incident Mr Tomlinson was clearly "shot in the back" walking away from the officers concerned. From my experiance working with the British Military in 2 theatres of operation i observed countless times the actions of younger soldiers, led by just as young officers, display far superior levels of restraint, discipline and profesionalism in the face of clear, real and present danger far in excess of that presented at the time by the single individual concerned. You dont need GCSEs to be a policeman or a soldier butyou do need something between your ears to lead, train and guide them.
 

Here are a couple of articles which express my ideas better than I can. I ask all those police officers who can’t understand what all the fuss is about to read them carefully and then think rather than get defensive.
Like Stephen Glover, I would shun contact with the police. I’m sure most are OK but you don’t know which ones they are. I have spoken to officers in the past, in a polite normal way, and received rudeness in return. Twenty or more years ago my attitude was completely different.

First, an article by Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail

Stephen Glover

“I almost shun contact with the police in a way that I think would have been unimaginable 20 or 30 years ago. I no longer automatically assume they are on my side. In a series of encounters I have found them churlish, rude and occasionally slightly threatening - though, to be fair, sometimes also polite and helpful.”

And now an article by Suzanne Moore in the Mail on Sunday about an encounter she had with the traffic police when her Oyster card was not read by the machine (but she hadn’t realised it).

Suzanne Moore

“What most angered me was their idea of what they were entitled to ask for. We do not have or want ID cards. I was doing nothing wrong by not carrying around a passport. But they acted as if I was.

The police do not have the right to demand this and a ticket inspector certainly doesn’t.

Civil liberties are infringed incrementally, and through ignorance and compliance. Casually, I told one policeman I was a journalist and might write about this. He actually said: ‘Yeah, well, it’s a free country, love.’

But I’m just telling you, it isn’t.”

I don’t usually agree with Suzanne Moore but she’s spot on in this article.

Brian Ginnity
 

Anonymous @ 4.17pm.

Look, my regard for the Britsh Army and the courage of it's soldiers are second to none, but you are way out of line on this occasion.

The British Army were responsible for "Bloody Sunday", hardly a shining example of the "discipline and profesionalism in the face of clear, real and present danger" you refer to.

Does the Lee Clegg incident remind you of someone getting shot in the back as they walked (or on this occasion drove)away?
 

The article by Moore makes her sound childish and bit entitled. The inspectors were doing their job and Ms Moore didn't seem to want to be bothered by it. She was difficult so they called the police to deal with her. So what?

I think it was very over the top to mention the protester who had the heart attack. If she is going to make stupid remarks like that, she shouldn't expect hugs and kisses from the police.

It doesn't sound like they treated her badly at all. I guess she is too special to be bothered and that attitude is the real problem.
 

"...We are not here to make friends, we are here to enforce the law..."
And that's why it's all gone pear-shaped, because the police no longer understand their purpose. Your job is to uphold the law and prevent crime, NOT enforce (definition: "to impose obedience by, or as if by, force").
You don't have customers, victims or otherwise. You are servants of the public and the Crown.
There is an "us & them" situation, but it was constructed on your side. You alienated yourselves from the public, who, let's be frank, go out of their way to turn blind eyes to some of the more common excesses committed by the police, doing their own complex mental juggling to conclude that you were somehow justified, or under duress, or doing a difficult job, blah blah blah...
The sooner you start "serving" again and stop "enforcing", the sooner this country might return to the happier days where policing by consent actually worked... and policemen did consider it part of their job description to make friends with Joe and Jane Public...
# posted by Anonymous : 10:16 PM, April 11, 2009"

Anon, dream on - things will never go back - where as we may be able to be friends with Jo & Jane public (aka law abiding citizens) we will always have to enforce the law with 90% of the people that we deal with.

Wake up and smell the coffee!!
 

Since when did it become normal for bus inspectors to demand a passenger's passport, or a driving licence on a bus? And since when was a credit card or a press card not acceptable ID?

And by what strange thinking does her objection to that make her "difficult"?. What country do you think we are living in? That you should think this way is very ominous for the future of this country.

...Looks at Johnny Law's profile.

Johnny Law, I've just looked at your profile and I see that you are some sort of policeman or security man in the USA. What a relief. The thought that you were a policeman in Britain was quite alarming.

Johnny Law, do you carry your passport around with you in everyday life? Do you carry your driving licence? In Britain, we've never been required to carry these documents and it never has been the custom to do so. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.

In the meantime, try looking up Sir Robert Peel's 9 principles of policing, the foundation of our policing tradition. You might then understand what we are getting at when we object to heavy-handed and bullying police tactics against ordinary members of the public
 

Sorry, forgot to put my name on the post at 5:56PM

Brian Ginnity
 

Dear Road Traffic Cop,

I can confirm that only a few decades ago, the traffic policeman and motorist conducted themselves differently and spoke another language. A motorist would usually have the good manners to get out of the car and meet the approaching officer who had ordered the stop. I will hastily add that I never once heard a policeman utter a profanity or an obscenity and our old style conversation usually started thus:
"Good evening Sir, is this your vehicle?"
"Yes Officer, have I done something wrong?"
A subsequent requirement to produce driving documents resulted in a quick visit to the local station and a brief word with the Sergeant, who was invariably the most well known and respected Villager. If you think I have enhanced this once protocol, ask any retired colleague.

Today, things are not as formal and when stopped, a motorist elects to remain seated in the car. From what I can discern of your language and attitude to the public, I imagine you beginning your conversation thus:
"Oi, this yer car mate?" From thereon, the conversation spirals downwards, does it not? You taunt and use obscenities, do you not?
You chose to disregard the request not to swear on this site which causes me to wonder if you show the same disregard for Road Traffic Regulations when you are driving. Unlike yesteryear, we motorists observe this behaviour on a regular basis to which we assign the word 'hypocrisy'. You also choose to conduct yourself on this site like a schoolyard bully and I speculate that your attitude may be rather worse when it is not open to scrutiny. These are the things that 'get up our noses'. It is not our behaviour that has changed so much as yours. You and others just like you, have brought the police service into disrepute and an almost unsalvageable state of damage.
 

Hit a nerve did I Doc?

I'll have you know that I am most polite to decent members of the public. I have a number of letters of appriciation and have never knowingly or willingly upset anyone.

You, sir, are as bad as the press, jumping to your very own conclutions.

I bid you a good evening.

RTC
 

Dr Melvin T Gray

I agree with you in the way things used to be dealt with.
I am a Traffic Cop (hiss!) and its a rather difficult job. You stop people for a genuine reason, be it speeding or a red light runner. The attitude of an increasing minority is to immediately deny any wrongdoing, regardless of how blatant. Secondly I can expect minor to extreme amounts of abuse. It takes quite a bit of me to not retort in the same manner. Invariable, it happens occasionally, and my toungue might slip. Not that I go into a tyrade. I just tell them to wind their neck in. I don't swear. It's unprofessional, and I regret it afterwards.
However, if a person is amicable to deal with, and they don't swear at me, they will get a friendly, polite reception.

Anonymous at 12:28.

Police incivility and rudeness does happen. Even I have been on one or two occasions as mentioned above. However, you assume that every cop is, all the time. Theyre not. There might be some who are rude an awful lot, and believe me they don't get far. On Police Corruption, I can say hand on heart I've never come across any in my 7 years. No one takes bribes, offers protection etc. It all in the movies. Although Im sure some corruption exists somewhere.
As for countering the "all police are thick as horse s*it" comment with the story about the beating of the young guy, I agree. Totally disgusting. However, that is certainly not proof that every cop just goes around smashing heads in! Those two idiots are probably out of a job now I assume?
 

Of course I mean Invariably, and second typo is Tirade :)
 

This unfortunate incident will be seized upon by people who have political axe to grind. If the incident had occurred as part of policing a football match, it probably would have been ignored by the media.
Anyone who has policed any sort of public order situation will be familiar with the person who having been told to move away, doesn't or more commonly walks very slowly.
Much has been made of the 'balaclava', which is likely to be a flameproof headover. These are worn under the Nato helmet and are tucked into the flameproof coveralls which are worn over a longsleeve cotton T shirt and long johns because the coveralls are flameproof but not heat proof. When the petrol bombs start flying, it is quicker to take the fluorry jacket off rather than than put the flame proof gear on, so it is worn beforehand.
Anyway let's see what the IPCC make of it.
 

I would like to know from some of the serving officers who read this site - what direction is given to you regarding removing shoulder numbers, name tags and covering of your face ???

and what is the reception they get from other police they stand shoulder to shoulder with... ?

I personally get the same feeling when i look at the protesters who do the same, they are not there for peaceful protest.

I fear for the "good, hard working and caring members of the force" come May Day. The 99 % of the coppers who will have to answer to the protesters (and the violent minority - of who i have no respect)... but it does not excuse the police to sink to their criminal level.

from viewing the photos of the photos of the G20 there is a minority of hardcore that wish to hide their identity. For what purpose ? criminal intent ? of course i am refering to the police as well as the protesters,


I am a graduate, and a paramedic, and had it been possible i would have been at the G20 peacefully protesting the terrible policies that the leading governments have caused untold misery and financial ruin around the world. i like to think that my right to peaceful protest would not have been violated.

Also is there any discussion about kettling - and the fact that it appears to be detention, without process, or arrest - has the policy been tested in a court of law ?
 

Brian Ginny,

I'm glad you are relieved that I am not a UK cop. I feel the same way as your society seems to think that officers are just uniforms waiting to be spit upon.

Thanks for schooling me on Sir Robert Peel. I'm confused because I didn't read anything in there about how we should stop doing our job as soon as someone feels put out by our presence (such as Moore seemed to feel).

You may take her story as the whole truth but I am pretty sure she left out some of the comments she made to the police. If she is argumentative and starts on the "Why don't you go catch some real criminals" then I classify that as difficult.

You may be surprised to learn this but police are typically very helpful and friendly until someone starts copping an attitude. Citizens tend to determine how an encounter goes. Remember that next time you encounter an officer and things will go smoothly for everyone involved.
 

Hamish@16:42 yest.

yes but the army have learnt nd applied the lessons of the 70s...My wife works for the police in a civilian capacity and they are still stuck in a 70s sweeney culture... The key issue is that of making intelligent and reasoned responses to incidents and events... God help the hormone loaded teenage daughters of a street copper... would door banging justify a slapping ? !!!
 

would like to know from some of the serving officers who read this site - what direction is given to you regarding removing shoulder numbers, name tags and covering of your face ???
The "face covering" is a flame retardant balaclava when petrol bombs fly it is very comforting. Officers will be told to wear it when "kitting up" in full level 2 gear. As for removing shoulder numbers no such "direction" will ever be given if this officer is not wearing shoulder numbers I do not know why. Could be he has them on the jacket but at 1cm high they are difficult to discern from a distance against the florrie background yes he should have black epaulettes on.
 

"God help the hormone loaded teenage daughters of a street copper... would door banging justify a slapping ? !!!"

Heh? as the father of teenage daughter and a street copper I am confused...........
 

anon 0206 - the public order briefings always state that officers should be in possession of full uniform which includes shoulder numbers. Whether they are taken off deliberately or simply forgotten (which is extremely easy as we only get issued with a couple of pairs to swap between shirts, armour, jackets, coveralls etc) is something the officers themselves need to explain.

Re the 'kettling' yes there is a legal precedent, and stated cases from the high court which say that it is perfectly justified and legal. After the Mayday riots in 2000 the tactic was brought in, thousands of people were held on Oxford Street for hours, many of whom were nothing to do with the protest. All of the subsequent legal challenges failed and the tactic was considered proportionate and necessary to the potential of damage and injury as seen in previous years.

Unless there is a new challenge which overalls the previous high court rulings, it's a tactic that is going to be used when there is known potential or previous intelligence that states a particular public order incident (and not just demo's) will become violent.
 

Johnny Law:

". They wanted ID. I produced a credit card, a Press card, a business card for this newspaper and, to top it all, a Matalan card. How amazingly normal could I be? But it wasn’t good enough. By now I was mystified. And late. And annoyed. ‘We want a driving licence or a passport.’

‘Do most people get on the bus with a driving licence?’ I asked. Another guy came over and said ‘Is she being difficult?’ Apparently I was. So the real police had to come and sort me out."

Look at the sequence of events above:

(1)The bus inspectors asked for ID.

(2)She produced it.

(3)It wasn't good enough. They wanted a passport or a driving licence.

(4)When she asked the perfectly reasonable question "Do most people get on a bus with a driving licence" another inspector came over and said to his colleague-"Is she being difficult".

Specifically, what annoyed her was the following.

The idea that a bus inspector had the right to see her passport. (She had already produce ID remember. Her press card alone should have been enough to identify her.
I don't know what you know about British society or history but the idea that we have to carry around ID so that any petty bureaucrat can see it on demand is totally ridiculous, unBritish and sinister. Perhaps you're confusing us with continental europe which does have a tradition of requiring citizens to carry a state issued ID card at all times.

She was then referred to in the third person, in her presence, by another inspector "Is she being difficult". Most people would find that extremely rude and a little bit threatening. I bet it would annoy you.
They were bus inspectors remember and she was a customer of the organisation they were working for.

So she had already been wound up by the bus inspectors before the police arrived.

The article was highlighting a change which has taken place in Britain over the last few years. The incident on the bus was an example. Many people have noticed that all sorts of officials, ticket inspectors, parking wardens, local council officials, police are adopting a more hostile and bullying attitude to the public. I suggest you read the article again where she gives other examples.

And I would be grateful if you would address the point about bus inspectors demanding to see a passport. As I said, in Britain, that is a ridiculous demand to make of somebody just out and out about in everyday life.

"What most angered me was their idea of what they were entitled to ask for. We do not have or want ID cards. I was doing nothing wrong by not carrying around a passport. But they acted as if I was."

That's the whole point:

"..they acted as if I was".
 

I've done it again.

anonymous post above at 2:40 PM, April 13, 2009 was mine

Brian Ginnity
 

Could someone please tell me when this much hinted at "Golden Age" of policing was ??? I can't remember it - and I can't remember reading about it either ! You know the one - where every "copper" was polite and amiable, nobody ever talked back and all a police officer had to do was threaten to "tell your dad" and everything would be solved. So, maybe someone could enlighten us all as to when exactly that was. If you think things were different in the 19th Century, I suggest you read a book called "The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher" or contemporary newspaper accounts (maybe even read some Dickens).
Police officers are much the same mix as the general public (hardly a surprise). Some are pleasant to deal with and others less so. Some hate confrontation and others love it. You get the general idea. A bit like any other profession.
I firmly believe that, overall, we have an excellent police force. What is required, though, is swift and effective action when it goes wrong. That sort of thing should start at the top, though. So, when a high ranking officer messes up, no fat pension - just boot them out and press criminal charges if they are appropriate. That, however, would set a dangerous precedent for other professions, wouldn't it? (politicians, bankers, etc, etc).
 

The main problem with imposing discipline on younger officers is the fact that most of them have never had a disciplined structured background-this is further exacerbated when they join the police and sit around all day discussing philosophical questions at what now passes for training school instead of being given a grounding in law with a firm disciplinary attitude from the "instructors" coupled with demanding physical and mental challenges.Once they hit their sections they suddenly find that they have to do things they dont want to do and are neither prepared for such as working nights or standing outside a murder scene all night in February.They then think they can argue with their Sgts many of whom will not take the right action because they know they wont be supported by their managers .There was an appalling incident a few months back when a MOP was assaulted by a Pc whom he had photographed driving through a No Entry sign to collect a take away.The MOP was knocked to the ground and his camera deliberately smashed.This Pc was not even prosecuted,and at his discipline hearing he received a slapped wrist.Now I am sure that the fact that this officer was a member of the Black POlice Association had nothing what so ever to do with this would it.Now of course that Chief Constable will never be able to regain discipline in force but then ACPO is just a crew of self serving chancers so what can you expect from junior ranks when the managers behave like they do?
 

For confused anonamous street copper with teenage daughter...

The issue is at the point at which Mr tomlinson was struck by the officer concerned did he represent a tangible threat to life, public order or property... yes he MIGHT have been drinking, yes he might have been walking away too slowly for the officers conveniance BUT is that suficient to warrent a beating from behind much in the same way as a teenager provoking her parents by door slamming doesnt warrent a good slapping to let her know whose in charge... If officers dont have the aptitude to tell the difference between a real threat and someone who is just drunk then they shouldnt be in the job.
 

"Officers will be told to wear it when "kitting up" in full level 2 gear"

So why then did only two of about 9 officers hear the order to dress in full level 2 kit ?

I find it very interesting that the officer who struck with his baton and push the victim over - had his face covered and shoulder numbers removed - hardly a co-incidence !

as a Sargent - are you not responsible for the dress of the officers under you ?

surely this sort of thing is easily solved with line of command and disciplinary action.

what is the reaction from other officers to this behaviour ?
 

No deaths yet but more mass arrests in dawn swoops on environmental protesters. A little spicing with spy stories, yawn. Nice one Julia, so beat that Meredydd. What's that - you can? Perhaps we should all sit down.

As tributes to Hillsborough pour in, the fierce competition for publicity between South Yorkshire Police and its Nottinghamshire neighbour climaxed this morning with news that Meredydd Hughes accepted blame for the Hillsborough tragedy, on behalf of his force.

The old police defence, infamously reliant upon shifting blame to the shoulders of Liverpool fans, has finally given way to full acceptance of the Taylor Inquiry conclusions. Well that made my Easter, Meredydd. Now get back to catching speeders you naughty hypocrite. Do you have a response Julia? - you do?
 

Anonymous I'm a Level 2 trained metofficer and perhaps I can point out a few things. I iamgine his face is covered because he's wearing a head over, a fire retardant face protector that looks a little like a balaclava to prevent flash burns from petrol bombs.

As for havinnig numbers I have now been down to the Public Order stores on a number of occasions to get the stickers for my helmet (that's over 2 years) and they haven't had my borough ones in stock each time.

As for not everyone being kitted up, whilst your supposed to wear full kit when ordered people pick and choose which bits to wear. I find the thigh guards prohibit movement and hurt, the same is true of shoulder ones so I don't wear them.
 

The latest news is that there are indeed cctv cameras in the area, contradicting the Mets press statements yet again. Considering the eyewitness accounts have been reasonably consistent and the police accounts have been shot out of the water in turn, who based on the evidence should we believe. As for the justification for using approved force, remember Sharon Shoesmith, waving her piece of paper claiming that her department had done nothing wrong? It might be worth the Met doing some introspection, not only on the use of force and crowd control, but more importantly on its integrity. The more often the police are caught lying the less the public are inclined to believe them when they genuinely use reasonable force or genuinely make an honest mistake.
 

anon above - It Nick Hardwick of the IPCC who said there was no cctv in the immediate area and that now the IPCC have confirmed there is cctv in the surrounding area as well as premises? The original Met statements were based on the information they had at the time, given that we're not the f&cking Borg and don't know everything that every Police officer has ever done or said that's the best we've got.
We act on the information we have at the time and are then criticised by armchair warriors like you who have both the luxury of a protracted investigation and hindsight on which to base your accusations.

Until the investigation is complete no one will have all the facts, would you rather the Met would said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any incident ever until all the facts are proven through fear of being branded liars and conspirators?
 

"given that we're not the * Borg"

No, we are talking about an area of streets involved in a pre-planned world level event. For the police not to understand the infrastructure of the area is more akin to a battle starved klingon.

"... would you rather the Met would said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any incident ever until .."

Yes. But remove the until. The Met should not give out ANY so called "facts". They should be limited to only giving requests for information. Normal police "facts" are fitered by the court system to protect us. Thankfully.
 

IT was the IPCC who made the comment NOT the Police, which is rather ironic giving the slagging that the IPCC gave the Met for making comments without having the full facts in the De Menezes case. Just as Police officers have to deal with all the time, he made a comment based on the information he had which turned out to be possibly wrong and he's now been branded a liar.

Nick Hardwick, told Channel 4 News: "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."

A spokeswoman for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said there are a number of public and private CCTV cameras in the streets around where Mr Tomlinson died.

She said an earlier statement by the watchdog's chairman Nick Hardwick that "there is no CCTV footage" may not be accurate as investigators continue to trawl through hours of evidence.

The spokesman said: "From the outset it has been a main line of our inquiry to recover all CCTV from the Corporation of London and from all private premises in the area.

"This work is ongoing and involves many hours of viewing and detailed analysis."

So..... how was this the Police lying again?
 

The public disquiet is not so much that an individual officer overstepped the line and possibly assaulted an innocent person. It is that the Met Press releases have time and time again been proven to be wrong, either through deliberate misinformation or a mistaken claim. When faced with Prima Facie evidence of an assault (video) that eyewitness accounts support and the Police Press statements are seemingly proved to be wrong, no contact before the captured (alleged) assault, rain of missiles thrown at paramedics, police assisting Mr Tomlinson while the crowd attacked them CCTV Cameras (I am sure I saw a police rather than an IPCC statement on this, but could be wrong). Who would you believe in court?
Then consider the police claims that the use of force was justified at the climate camp, and the dismissal that of other accusations of unjustified force. Again who would you believe? I am not suggesting that every or even most police officers are violent corrupt thugs or anything else of the sort; I am suggesting that there is a culture of denial at the top, which is discrediting the rank and file. While protecting individual officers who have committed what appear to be a crime.


Joseph K.
 

Difficult day? Trying day? Smack someone then, go on, hit them. Give them a real knock around the chops. Just some clueless charlie, or some woman who's too mouthy for her own good. There's a whole lot of people who would. But you know what? You're supposed to be police officers, aren't you – not the kind of scum you get called out to handle in housing estates on a Saturday night. Take a look at yourselves. And if the odd 'trying day' is too much to handle without resorting to the same kind of thuggery we're all making excuses for, then you aren't cut out for this at all. Try another career where there are no 'trying days'. And good luck with finding that before you get too free with your fists again.
 

To the person (presumably a constable) using Lee Clegg as a bad example for the army in MACP situations a simple point.

At the trial the jury found all of the rounds fired i.e. as the vehicle approached and when it was passing him to be proportionate legal and necessary when compared to the level of threat faced (i.e. a previous patrol in the area having been run down and personnel injured by cars failing to stop at check points).

Apart from the final round which caused the damage.

What really knackered them was the collusion over what had occurred and the eventual change of heart of the RUC officer (who the patrol was tasked with escorting as he went about his lawful duties). Is something similar going to happen here?
 

G20: kettled protesters, scuffles, and spotlight falls on police again:
*Footage shows woman slapped and hit with baton
*Incident at Tomlinson memorial ceremony

Lol - let me guess - another "isolated" incident? Another "bad apple"?

Link to article and videoAdmit it - the police service is just uniformed thuggery.
 

Look at that big hard man in the video linked above...

That he should smack anybody in the face like that - LET ALONE A WOMAN - is bad enough, but then he pulls out his baton and hits her again.

What ... a cowardly pice of filth.

How would you react if some bloke did that to your wife/daughter/girlfriend/sister/mother?

Can you see now why the police will never have the respect of the public? can you see now why it doesn't matter how much you expend hot air trying to defend your actions, how much you try to talk your way out of it, justify your violence, it matters not one iota.

Q.How can you tell if a policeman is lying?

A.His lips are moving.
 

Seems to me it's standard policy for people who have arbitrary authority to abuse it.

Why do the people fear the government?
 

The water cannon is long overdue. The outdated British tradition of police officers marshalling public protests is clearly not working.
Perhaps a shift to a more Continental style of crowd control is what is required?
Let the good people marshall themselves.
But as soon as the glass starts breaking the crowd are doused with copious ammounts of freezing cold water.

Or leave em to it, I care little for the corporate suits in the banks anyway.
Hazel Blears was walking around Stockport Town Centre yesterday. Where's a stick wielding angry anarchist when you need one?
 

A member of the TSG again!
 

My Mom, Wife and daughter would not run 3 times at a copper and swear and after being told to get back they would do just that. It a publi order situation not a tea party
 

It is not the role of the police to use force to suppress dissent.

After 794 years, Magna Carter has been torn up.

In 1381 our ancestors fought hard to win our liberties in the Peasants' Revolt.

Now we have a government that uses its own private, armed shock troops (whom they compel us, on threat of imprisonment, to pay for!) to crush dissent, and laws to detain those who disagree with the government. Even harmless old men at Labour party conferences.

Everty serving policeman and woman in this country should be too ashamed to put on their uniform of hate today.

But actually, I think we know that most of them will have found that video amusing, and convinced themselves and each other that "the mouthy cow deserved it".

"My Mom, Wife and daughter would not run 3 times at a copper and swear and after being told to get back they would do just that. It a publi order situation not a tea party"

The woman was within her right to complain after seeing another innocent guy struck by the police. She is then within her right to complain after being manhandled by that thug the first time.

Swearing? Oooh, how dangerous! The policemen must have wet his pants and quivered in fear at the thought of being sworn at by a woman half his size. He must have needed to defend himself from those stinging words.

It is not a public order situation until the police provoke one. Rather than post garbage like that, you should marvel at the restraint of the protestors who saw that, outnumbered the police, and could have torn them apart had they chosen to.

The difference is we the public generally obey the laws of the land, unlike the animals in uniform.
 

And as a PS - Very clear video evidence of the incident and the events leading up to it. WHY HASN'T THIS MAN BEEN ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF ASSAULT??
 

A member of the TSG again!

# posted by Anonymous : 9:54 AM, April 15, 2009

Well it is the policeman's blog after all!
If you don't like it- log off.

PEACE!
 

"Well it is the policeman's blog after all! If you don't like it- log off."


Read the blog description:

"This blog is written by and accepts submissions from serving and former police officers and concerned MOPs."

If you don't like the criticism, go away and rough up some women and drunks.
 

I have just taken the time to read through a few of the blogs added this site.

What really stands out is the fact that clearly this topic has caused pen to paper, or fingers to keyboards, of some very well educated people who have very different opinions of the Police, although it is apprant that dispite their level of education in their specific departments they clearly know nothing about Policing.

I ask those who are entirely negative towards the Police, have you ever been involved in a public order situation, have you ever even seen disorder not from behind a screen?

There were more than 35000 angry protesters being Policed by only a few thousand Police officers.

It was very important that the Police were firm and took no nonsence otherwise the whole situation could have become out of control.

The actions of one drunken male refusing to follow simple orders from officers has created even more hatred against our fine officers who do a sterling job with poor wages, poor equipment and without the support of the government.

British people should be standing up for the Police, drunken idots have no place on our streets. The majority of the protesters got their points across just fine without refusing to follow the directions of the Police.

I would like to personally congratulate the officers Policing the G20 for their dedication to the cause, their prevention of larg scale disorder and their conduct towards the public.

Individual cases will be reviewed my the IPCC and proper action taken where necessary.

Have any of you seen how event such as this are Policed elsewhere in the world?

Remember who you call when you need them, remember where they go when you dare not and remember the things they do and see so you don't have to.

Keep up the good work.
 

Darn, I know I typed "Carta" as "Carter" - apologies, I had the film "Get Carter!" stuck in my mind as I was writing for some reason! =P
 

I have come a bit late to this debate but am puzzled by MCMs comments that he had watced video footage of mr Tomlinson being treated by a police medic and seen the police there on the receiving end of a barrage of missiles. What footage? This footage only seems to exist in the imagination of MCM and the Met press office as there is no evidence at all that this happened. Quite the opposite. Please do not make things up.

I am alarmed not just by the Tomlinson video but by the second one which has now appeared and shows a police man swinging his baton at the legs of a woman - who is objecting to the treatment of someone else in the crowd. Clearly the Met have been taught to use this (batonning legs) as a means of crowd control.

(And it is of course yet another cop with no identification. Why can they get away with it? We also read that swapping tags is another tactic used to confuse anyone wanting to make a complaint.)

Finally I see the senior officer charge of policing G20 (O'Brien?) is now claiming anyone who wanted to and asked politely was allowed to leave a kettled area. What substance is he on? could This is bluntly contradicted by too many eye witnesses including an MP and several reputable journalists, to be even vaguely plausible.

When will the Met learn that making it up as you go along only serves to discredit them further?

Don't the police need the co-operation of the public to solve crimes? How do they expect to maintain our respect and good will if they go around kettling up peaceful citizens and thwacking non violent locals on the grounds being in the area it is a public order offence. They are just acting as thugs. It has also not gone unnoticed that they do not treat Muslim protest marches like this.
 

There are several "versions" of the new G20 video - as in differing lengths - and it is quite clear that this all started over a man politely asking to be allowed to leave, and ending up being manhandled by the police.

So yes, more damned lies from the police, and it removes the excuse of prolonged provocation: nobody was winding up that TSG monkey until the guy with the newspaper gets roughed up.
 

Link to latest video.

YouTube
 

"puzzled by MCMs comments that he had watced video footage of mr Tomlinson being treated by a police medic and seen the police there on the receiving end of a barrage of missiles. What footage? This footage only seems to exist in the imagination of MCM and the Met press office as there is no evidence at all that this happened. Quite the opposite. Please do not make things up."

He's apparently a policeman, maybe he can't help making things up?
 

If either of them had done something wrong then arrest them. Then, if they resist, beat them to death. It is only fair.

So when will the IPCC look at the photo sequences of the isolated bloke "eaten" by the same dog handlers on flickr. Why was he not arrested for a crime. Obviously he must have done something terrible for 2 dogs to take a chunk out of his arm. Why, as with the news paper bloke, did they not get escorted to a medic immediately.

We do not have police we have hi-vis executioners. I preferred the full mask and scythe look personally.

Before all the bleeding hearts start up, Yes it is terrible out there in the sink estates and town centers. But even there, there are the law abiding unfortunates. (I have never even had a parking ticket, warning, nothing). However, like the G20 if this country continues to limit movement and divide the population into types, and activities into zones, the only out come will be more extreme behaviour.

A good example are the bankers, on April 1st the good citizens of this country entered their sink estate in London with their high walls and armoured doors. All they wanted to do was protest at the thieves who inhabit this un-Policed area of corruption and massive drug use. An area that is rife with misuse of personal details and the source of ID theft. Personally I have written to our MP on a particular illegal ID database sold, but just got a one line back "What do you expect...". So we ask the police can we protest, and WE expect be protected. Not the criminal bankers, us. We were the victims of the theft. Your answer is to just zone and classify us as all the same, and if a number of trouble makers start up, just take it as your cue to start killing and injuring the rest. Thoroughly justified.

Still feel good about your job? At least you have one. My industry was destroyed by this government and the bankers greed.
 

Here are a couple of bits of info that should make everyone who has contributed to this blog either write to the Home Office their MP or Chief Constable.
1.Many police officers are now earning thousands and thousands in overtime working long hours
2.Most forces are planning to cut hundreds of officer posts over the next couple of years.
This means that the ones that are left will be working even longer or more intensely which heightens the risk of an accident in a police car or of tempers becoming frayed and another member of the public gets hurt.And I know people will say that police officers are lazy need to work harder etc bur let me say that in my experience 90% of police work is done by 10% of the staff and if the police mess up it can result in death injury or botched investigations.So the Great British Public whats it going be?Your call....
 

Disband the TSG. Plain and simple, they are quite clearly violent steroid taking meatheads that enjoy beating women and old men. A Disgrace to the british police. It was a TSG serial that "caused" the Macpherson report for letting a stab victim bleed to death because they assumed it was over drugs. The Demise of this unit is well overdue
 

"Remember who you call when you need them"

Actually, I gave up calling the police years ago: after 6 incidents where it had become clear that they had absolutely no intention of doing anything that might have resulted in them catching anyone, come the seventh I didn't waste my time.

Where am I supposed to get my faith in the police from?
 

anon 1201 - I didn't watch any footage of Tomlinson being treated by medics, I was there on cordon when the woman came to the line and told the medics there was a man collapse and the WATCHED WITH MY OWN EYES as the medics and a serial went into the crowd. As soon as they stopped to treat him they had bottles and other bits of crap thrown at them which is why he was casevac'd. At no point has anyone seen video footage of this because it hasn't been released. Get your f&cking facts straight before you accuse other people of lying. The only two videos released about Tomlinson show the initial contact where he was batoned once and pushed twice.
 

Well there is video coverage of mr Tomlinson being treated and a single plastic bottle being thrown in from the crowd. What else was thrown? MCM You say this will be released in due course? I shall be very interested to see it.
 

all I've seen footage wise is a photo of the medic Sgt with Tomlinson on the ground with a tube in, if there is video then put the link up so we can see it but I know what I saw as I was there unlike the vast majority of people here baying for blood and careers whilst accusing us of lying. As for footage the place was covered in people with cameras so I'm sure something will eventually come out.
 

Here is footage of the police cordon preventing the ambulance reaching Mr Tomlinson and the crowd shouting for it to be let through

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f0S6PPLI8Q

and here is footage of the police caring for Mr Tomlinson on the ground after he collapsed and a single bottle being thrown, to objections from the crowd. This is followed by Mr Tomlinson being carried away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQm4LFfOcA

and here are the police attacking the noisy but unarmed demonstrators at the Police Camp.

Over to you MCM
 

To be honest i never thought i would say this or hold this view but i think we should go on strike sod the public. Seven days on strike all rank and file officers up to inspector they couldnt sack us all. See how all these do- gooders and loud mouths cope when the evil poor of the estates come knocking on their door maybe they can form a focus group and talk over their differences....or get beaten to a bloody pulp by people who have no concept of reasonable force or diversity issues.
 

Firstly, it was a public order situation and there are agreed protocols for the other services because the rules and the ways you work are different from normal every day work. Ordinarily the LAS would be at an established and agreed RVP well into the rear of Police lines, mainly because you don't send paramedics into a public order incident without protection, no matter how utterly pleasant you think the majority of the crowd are, it only takes one knob to attack them and it has happened before which is why we do it that way. You ensure the medics are protected because if they get injured they are no help to anyone. The first video ends after the ambo had been at the cordon for less than 30 seconds, given that it has come from outside the cordon I can only assume that it was one that was sent after one of the calls from a member of the public? They would immediately deploy to that and would not necessarily liaise with their own people at the incident room (where all the services have their own command team to speed up responses and co-ordination) if the calls had not been linked, especially if there were several calls. Also the video ends as the ambo is moving towards the line so we don't know if they were taken through? I've been on cordons before and that has happened, they are usually either directed to the agreed RVP if they aren't aware or taken to within the cordon line to get further direction, again to make sure they aren't sent in somewhere dangerous by accident.

Second vid - you've got precisely 14 seconds of the medics and the serial on scene with Tomlinson. They were there for much longer than that and as I said, I was on a cordon and could see things being thrown at them. They would only move the casualty if it is deemed too dangerous to get the paramedics and an ambo to them. As I've said all along, we have to wait for ALL of the evidence to be collected by the investigators instead of vilifying the Police with seconds of video of incidents that lasted minutes or even hours.
 

Dear therankandfile,

Your posting invites public comment on a call for a National police strike. I am not seeking to be deliberately provocative but I doubt we will even notice a police strike. Many of us have relegated the reporting of crime to the bin of pointless exercises.

Police interests would be better served by constructive proposals. Suggestions for improvement from members of the public leaving comment, are often met with abuse. Obscenities and threats will assist neither side.
 

MCM Forgive them for they know not what they are on about.

On the one hand you're preaching to the converted my friend. Those of us up and down this pleasant land who know what it is to leave their loved ones for a tour of duty and be faced by a hateful mass who would smash your face to pulp if they could get you on your own. I've been there as well my friend.
On the other hand you're trying to reason with people who are not interested in your argument because it does not serve their communist/anarchic/class war alliances. When they start to condemn the utter scum within their ranks intent on razing our capital's financial centre to the ground, I will start to listen and sympathise with their concerns.
Until then I will play my part in policing by the consent of the silent majority of the British public.
 

"When they start to condemn the utter scum ..."

So can we agree that both sides have some obvious scum along for the ride.

However, one side is a vast majority of pissed off public and the other is a so called trained accountable police force!

Think about it.

Anyone that does not recognise the hitting brigade and deals with them in the same way as the vocal brigade is pure
delusional. Any policy to leave, condense and trap the vocal public with the hitting public and wait for it to boil, is inciting unrest.

Oh why, with police uniforms visible inside the building, were the windows smashers not CS gassed, dyed or arrested. It can not be unobvious that the worst offending bank should have had its windows so vulnerable. To be so negligent of that target for rent a mob is laughable. Or was it just enough scum action so that you can label everyone scum and start dishing it out regardless.

Sadly I met one once. His pleasure was to tag along with crowds and "hit". No one in particular. Just for fun. Quite proud of it. Very similar to a drug addict psychology. We see them advertised each night on some criminal advertising TV program. The message is simple: "You are normal look at all these others like you. Look you have to do better, there are others far more ruthless and out of control." Then who makes the programs: The Police.

Kettle all you want but divide and scatter. Not gather up. You should start looking at real battle tactics. Most ancient battles were won before the first contact. Give you a hint, the ones you want are not in the middle! Or wandering around on the outside alone. But then why risk hitting a real criminal when there are so many easier targets. Just need to get over the huddle of seeing a mob vs. seeing a mass if individuals and it is justified. The first stage is to label "it" a riot.

Finally you statement: "you're trying to reason with people who are not interested in your argument because it does not serve their communist/anarchic/class war alliances". What are you thinking, you are not social workers. You are communicating commands and performing your duties which are mostly scripted. Even after a bad incident you should have a set response. Even to the point of stating rank and serial number for those short people, or elderly, you have just belted the legs from under.
 

I for one haven't said the attack by a tsg operative on Tomlinson caused his death. I am waiting for the autopsy.

My concerns are that there seems to be a general move by the police to stifle and suppress dissent among the public, even when it is peaceful. We saw it first in the illegal suppression by the police of peaceful protest when the Chinese premier visted.

This has evolved into a general supposition that anyone attending a demonstration is potentially a violent demonstrator and any force the police use on anyone who remonstrates with them in any way, is somehow reasonable and justified as a result. The police are just getting their retaliation in first as it were.

Surely the role of the police is to ensure that demos can pass off peacefully, not to beat up and terrorise and generally harrass everyone taking part? When did we become guilty until proven innocent? By all means identify ring leaders, using intelligence if necessary. This does not seem a good enough reason to allow the TSG to lay about anyone who gets in their way, while concealing their own identity.

I noticed, did anyone else, on the video footage, that when a TSG operative starts laying about the public, the other officers and dog handlers etc discreetly look the other way. Makes you almost wonder if this is an agreed tactic, "Let the TSG boys handle the rough stuff" sort of thing.

I wonder if the same tactics would have been used if the crowd had been mainly muslim, I suspect not, and in the interests of community cohesion the police would have backed off (remember that footage of them running away recently from a muslim protest march). White predominantly english people are, like the Countryside alliance, a much softer target.

Commander Simon O'Brien's comments that the Climate camp protestors, protesters, whom the police acknowledged were peaceful, would be asked to move on politely as night fell are laughable. Again this did not happen.

Kettling clearly penalises the peaceful protestor as well as the violent one.

But we come back to intelligence and its role in police work. If the police, by their tactics, antagonise the law abiding majority, then they will lose their respect (what is left of it) and intelligence in the form of freely offered information will be even harder to come by.
 

When all you 'Anarchists' 'Smash the State', be carefull not to smash the dole office too...............

I despair, I really do. You are going to end up with the country you deserve, with the likes of 'Dr Melvin T Gray' at the helm, and parasites who wouldn't have the bottle to wear a coppers uniform, yet alone carry out some of the duties, but are awfully big and brave in a riot, or behind a computer screen. Not me. I am doing my best to leave. I wonder if the Honolulu Fire Department is recruiting.
 

I think you are out of luck, dandyfireman. Honolulu is not short of zombies - try Haiti.
 

The 'beating' by the copper is clearly unnecessary but had the protest not been there would this of happened?
I'm not saying people shouldn't protest but they should accept that their actions will always have unintended consequences. Members of the police are clearly at fault but so were members of the protest. I have seen plenty of smashed windows etc. in the news' video footage recently.
I studied politics at university and in particularly ideology. I would estimate 90% of these protesters don't have a clue about anarchist, communist, green etc. ideology or could even name a single academic writer in the field. These people just hop on the band wagon and like to think they know what they are talking about and cause trouble all in the name of ideology.
 

Perhaps you'll put in a good word with your boss for me then 'anonymous'?
 

To whom it may concern:

"Dandyfireman's intellect has uses and I owe my own success to many like him. The right side of his brain will be shipped out upon his appointment and safe extraction from the jar."
Yours etc,
Chief Fire Officer.
 

Not long now before the good citizens of the UK get the police service they deserve rather than the police service they need...

Anglian Militant
 

Much obliged 'Anonymous'. I fear though, that I'll never be up to the standard required to work alongside you in Haiti.

Don't forget - leave the dole office alone when you and your ilk 'Smash the State'. You don't want to cut your nose off to spite your face, do you now?
 

Dr MTG- you may wish to bring out the ridiculous proposition that you would not notice if society was not policed for a day. Perhaps you wouldn't. Mercifully there are only so many criminals on the streets and they couldn't ransack each and every house between them over the course of 24 hours.

However, many would notice. The Police provide a strong deterrent which, in spite of your continuous (and now increasingly tedious by the way) sniping from the sidelines, protects you and others from the truly nasty characters in society. When you NEED the police you would always call us and pray that we can stop whatever horror is happening to you or a loved one. You know this as well as I do.

The way forwards for reforming the police is to be debated, but your persistent running-down of serving officers and apparent determination to undermine us all so that we are not able to contribute with any authority is the most objectionable part of this debate.

You do not do the frontline work under discussion- you may have a contribution to make but do not fool yourself in to believing that your Daily Express contributions of one line melodrama constitutes a cogent argument. They don't- they are just a side attraction to the real issues. I seem to remember that once upon a time you provided constructive and challenging viewpoints, it is a tremendous shame to see how far you appear to have wandered from that.
 

Anyone like to comment on the apparent determination of some Met police not to wear their numbers?
 

Dear Anonymous at 6:31,

I try to be accurate and just in my comments. Unlike yourself, I decline to conceal my identity because nobody should fear speaking what they hold to be true. Allow me to state, yet again, I am a mainstay supporter of good policing. Notwithstanding, the Coppersblog team have made repeated attempts to discredit me. Those attempts have been no more successful than efforts to conceal the true circumstances of Mr Tomlinson's death. So, returning to topic if you do not mind, let us examine the scandal of lies and conspiracy unfolding before the public whilst we speak:

1st Police Version - We had no contact with Mr Tomlinson other than trying to save him whilst we dodged missiles from the rabble.

2nd Police Version - He died of natural causes; a pathologist of our choice agrees.

3rd Police Version - Sorry about the first hurried post mortem. There was no heart attack and one officer is now facing possible manslaughter charges.

4th Police Version - .........."enter further excuses here".............

One of the prerequisites for good policing is absolute trust and public confidence in police statements. In the UK, we can no longer claim that such trust exists and the rest of the World knows it.

Dr M T Gray
Concern4Justice
 

Dr Gray makes the mistake of taring all officers with the same brush..
i am a serving police officer and do not tar all doctors with the same brush as that used for Dr Harold Shipman..

In the same way that i do not attribute our senior managers are as perfect as the Senior managers in the NHS...

Anglian Militant
 

While i am an avid supporter of the police and the work that they do, the rise in the number of cases such as this in recent years is quite schocking. The more recent case of the 16 year old girl who was knocked down and killed by a police car driving way over the speed limit without the lights on highlights the point.

It is also difficult to argue with the evidence in the video which clearly shows the man being shoved to the ground from behind, in what looks to be an unprovked attack. It has now been confirmed that he did not die of a heart attack.

Prehaps what is more worrying is the different version of events that unfolded after the incident and I am left wondering where we would be without the video evidence. This was clearly not a case of reasonable force.
 

Dear Anonymous policeman @ 8:34,

Erroneous assumptions and misspelling are not hallmarks of a good officer. I am very sorry for good quality policemen and I would like to see the bad apples removed quickly. I resort to such elementary terms in the hope of making my position known to you.

Dr M T Gray (not a medic)
Concern4Justice
 

Dr MTG,

I would have thought a comment like that was beneath you, apparently not. A shame. Incidentally- I do hide my identity (and it would be no less hidden were I to have an online handle so I just stick with anonymous).

I don't remain anonymous because I am ashamed of my beliefs or believe they are unpalatable, but because there are inevitably elements within the police and society as a whole who are willing to become hysterical over matters that shouldn't be escalated to that level.

Such examples might include an 'off message' post on a blog.. or two incidents of controversial decisions within a protest involving tens of thousands of people and a tragic death where the honourable and respectful thing to do would be to step back and allow justice to be done rather than use it to score political points while the family still grieves.

Same Anon as 631
 

Hey, DR MEL, I can usually agree with most of what you say and try to get across to people on here, but being a bit of a nit picker over spelling mistakes??? That doesn't sound like you. What's up?

I thought you were above that sort of attitude. Some people are just not brilliant at spellings, myself included. I have to work very hard at getting them right and sometimes I fail to do that.
Some people just forget how to spell words, or are in a hurry and not concentrating properly. They could even be DYSLEXIC, like Einstien and lots of other brilliant genius's, past and present. The odd spelling mistake is not a sign of an inferior, nor "bad" officer. You are a hard task-master Doc.

Erroneous assumptions YES, I quite agree, are not especially the hallmark of a good officer. But we can all jump to conclusions when stressed. The hallmark of a good officer, is to admit to a mistake when they realise they have made one, surely? We are all only human.
Chill out Doc!

What's this "Concern4Justice"?
Is it an organisation? A crusade?
I'll join it.....

Regards, Florence
 

So, the second postmortem had found Mr Tomlinson died not of a heart attack but abdominal haemorrhage. It now transpires that the IPCC has had the results of the second postmortem - which are startlingly but not surprisingly different from those of the Met's "team player" pathologist - for a week. The thug that attacked Tomlinson has also been interviewed under caution on suspicion of manslaughter several days ago (but given his "more equal than others" status, ie a policeman, hasn't been arrested.)

The TSG would have gotten away with this if it hadn't been for those meddling camera phones.

If it hadn't been for the public "kettling" the police on this issue, an innocent man's death would have been whitewashed as natural causes, with no contact with police beforehand, drunk, and then heroicly protected from a barrage of missiles by good samaritan coppers...
 

Perhaps the good 'Doctor' and his ilk would care to pass comment on PC Gary Toms, who was critically injured confronting suspected robbers and had his life-support machine switched off yesterday. He died on the 25th anniversary of WPC Yvonne Fletcher's death. (She was murdered outside the Lybian embassy in case you police 'bashers' don't remember).

Rather than sniping from the sidelines, perhaps the good 'Doctor' should join the police and try to change it from within.

As U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson said at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we'll have to wait until "Hell freezes over" for THAT to happen.

Is my spelling OK 'Doctor'? I'd hate for you to think I was a bad quality fireman.
 

I'll gladly "pass comment on PC Gary Toms, who was critically injured confronting suspected robbers and had his life-support machine switched off yesterday."

Any loss of life is a terrible tragedy. In this case, a policeman was killed, possibly deliberately, by criminals.

I don't see how it has ANYTHING to do with justifying unprovoked brutality by the police against members of the public. In fact, not only does your mention of it here cheapen the death of this policeman, but it shows how desperate police apologists are to divert from the details of the Tomlinson case.

Roughly 150 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001: does this mean squaddies can attack Afghans on the streets of London now? Does this mean that if a squaddie beat an Afghan MoP to death in Wigan, he'd receive a get-out-of-jail-free card or special kid-glove treatment?

This is just another part of the pathetic smear/propaganda campaign that the police service hides its crimes behind.
 

Could you explain to me, in your own words, where I have tried to justify the actions of the police in London? I question the 'unprovoked' angle though. You don't know all the facts and neither do I.

How exactly does my mentioning of it 'cheapen' the death of this officer? He died doing his duty, as have many of my colleagues in the fire service. Something I'd bet my pension on, will never happen to you.

As to your analogy regarding squaddies in Afghanistan, that is a complete canard, and typical of the propoganda spouted by the 'Smash the State' mob. (Be carefull not to burn down the benefits office when you do 'Smash the State though).

As for the "This is just another part of the pathetic smear/propaganda campaign that the police service hides its crimes behind.", you'll notice that I am not a police officer. The clue is in my nickname.
 

I can't help feeling (but would love some reaction from the coppers on this site) that the police force increasingly believes it is above the law. So, in this instance, police man feels he can assault a member of the public for no apparent reason and we then have the familiar cover-up (similar to the Menezes case). The Damien Green shambles falls under the same category - politically-driven arrest of serving politician. And we have PCs covering up their identifying badges. Guys - would love to know what you think ios going on?
 

The Dandyfireman said...
"Could you explain to me, in your own words, where I have tried to justify the actions of the police in London?"

By bringing it to a discussion about the attack on Tomlinson! By smugly asking for "comment", somehow thinking it is the special ace-up-your-sleeve, that a policeman is killed on duty and therefore we should all forget about the brutality meted out on a daily basis by bullies in blue uniforms.

"I question the 'unprovoked' angle though. You don't know all the facts and neither do I."

The police may only respond with reasonable force to the situation. As Tomlinson had not touched a policeman and was presenting zero threat to any policeman, it was UNPROVOKED. Don't pretend their is more to this than meets the eye. The only thing that matters is those images captured of Tomlinson being attacked. Anything that happened before is immaterial. Had he done something wrong he should have been arrested there and then. He hadn't and wasn't.

"How exactly does my mentioning of it 'cheapen' the death of this officer? He died doing his duty, as have many of my colleagues in the fire service."

Because it is immaterial to and entirely unconnected to the attack on Tomlinson. You are just using it as a peurile attempt to score points for yourself, as though this is all a verbal game of tit-for-tat to you. Likewise, how is the deatrhs of firefighters related? You really like to make a big deal of deaths in service, don't you? Tomlinson wasn't "on duty", Tomlinson wasn't earning overtime, Tomlinson wasn't getting a fat pension, Tomlinson wasn't a "public servant", Tomlinson never signed up to run the gauntlet and lay his life on the line. Your comparisons are pointless.

"Something I'd bet my pension on, will never happen to you." You are so smug, aren't you? You have some superiority complex, thinking that everyone here who objects to police brutality is (your words) "on the dole" , out to "Smash the State", and an "anarchist". What a load of crap. I served in the Army for 12 years, and faced more action on Aldershot High street than you'll ever see, sonny. I served Queen and Country all over the world, volunteered for every dangerous posting possible, wore my uniform with pride, and was fully prepared to lay down my life in that service. I even fought fires while you and your workshy mates were standing around on the picket lines scratching your lazy arses for more pay...

"As to your analogy regarding squaddies in Afghanistan, that is a complete canard, and typical of the propoganda spouted by the 'Smash the State' mob. (Be carefull not to burn down the benefits office when you do 'Smash the State though)."

Again, more totally off-the-mark assumptions, more attempts to smear the legitimate protest against police brutality. And by the way, even dolies have rights, you know. You betray your ignorance, bigotry and prejudices every time you trot out that old chestnut.

As for a canard, it is a perfectly reasonable example of reductio ad ridiculum to show irrelevance of your twittering about police deaths in service having any bearing on police brutality.

"As for the "This is just another part of the pathetic smear/propaganda campaign that the police service hides its crimes behind.", you'll notice that I am not a police officer. The clue is in my nickname."

I never said you were a policeman. I said you are throwing out the usual smears (dole scroungers, anarchists, etc etc) used by the police and their apologists. as for any clue being in your nickname, get over yourself: for all I know you're just some internet troll claiming the dole and pretendng to have a job.
 

My father died unexpectedly in hospital and had to have a postmortem. This found blood in his stomach and the cause of death was given as a heart attack. There were no policemen hitting him beforehand or anyone else for that matter so the cause seemed unclear. My sister in law, who is a pathologist, said that sometimes there is no indication of prior heart trouble and a sudden attack can leave some blood in the stomach as you get internal bleeding at this time. So I would not dismiss the first pathologist out of hand.

On the other hand, if there were various earlier assaults by the police on Mr Tomlinson to make him move him along (a female film maker says she saw Mr Tomlinson hit by the police and fall earlier,) then that earlier incident may have cause the bleeding, and it may be that more than one policeman contributed. Have the police involved in the earlier incident come forward? I doubt it.

We are only told that 4 police have come forward as being present when Mr Tomlinson is hit, as seen on film. I counted 8 in the video footage. Where are the others?

It does emphasise the need for policemen to wear their ids. If one gets out of line they have to be identified. This is impossible if they are wearing balaclavas and have removed their number tags. (This is a long standing problem - police at the CA demo had removed their numbers - which should have been tacked by TSG commanders earlier). Particularly now it is an offence to photograph the police.

Some of the police posting here are justifying their behaviour according to their public order instructions for the day which involved kettling, pushing back the public and then hitting and batoning them if they did not move back.

It was not made clear beforehand to the public that the police would use their batons on anyone who disobeyed their instructions and maybe this was because this would have provoked a political row if it had.

But it meant that, not for the first time, the Met appeared to be operating according to a set of internal rules not released to the public.

In this case they seem to have assumed that everyone in the demo or kettled area was potentially violent and risked being treated as violent and duffed up by the police. This is not what the majority of the public understand as peaceful policing of a demo.

The police have to stop acting as unaccountable and that then acting to conceal evidence afterwards. The scars of the de Menezes incident have left a lot of mistrust but no one in the Met hierarchy seems to have learnt from this.

Look at the details which are coming out about the Damien Green raid for example, police trawling his files to find information to use against the Director of Liberty. And the botched way it was all handled presumably on political bidding.

The police need to make some clear water between themselves and their political masters for a start. They need to show they are politically independent, regardless of whether the government of the day is made uncomfortable.

They would get more respect from the public if they did. But they also have to be seen to be identifiable and accountable to the public and at present it seems they are not.
 

The political independence of the police has been whittled away over the years. I have lost count of the number of arguments I have had with senior officers when they have used the phrase "It's what the government want" to justify a new policy or procedure. Governments pass laws they shouldn't set policy. The involvement of the Mayor of London int the recruitment process for the Commissioner is proof that he is now politically beholden. Further the treating of membes of the public as "customers" now means that he who pays says. Our local authority will give additonal funds to the police but only for "agreed priorities". So the police have become a politcal animal
 

Mithrelle said:

"What a load of crap. I served in the Army for 12 years, and faced more action on Aldershot High street than you'll ever see, sonny. I served Queen and Country all over the world, volunteered for every dangerous posting possible, wore my uniform with pride, and was fully prepared to lay down my life in that service. I even fought fires while you and your workshy mates were standing around on the picket lines scratching your lazy arses for more pay..."

Is that right Andy McNab, is that right? And how do you know I didn't do the same as you, Son? Who's sounding smug now and trying to pull aces out of his/her sleeve? Who's throwing out 'smears' now then? You're very perceptive of what I have seen and done from behind a computer screen aren't you?

Mithrelle said:

"we should all forget about the brutality meted out on a daily basis by bullies in blue uniforms."

You have black and white evidence of this do you? Or is it just another of your canards, or another 'Guardian' story? I don't know either way, and neither I suspect, do you.

I have never ONCE tried to justify the actions of the officer in this case, and if you got off of your white charger, maybe you'd see that.

As for your comments regarding 'deaths on duty', well, it tells me all I need to know.

To be honest, I'll need the breath I'm wasting arguing with you when I'm playing rugby later on. Fact is, you have such a superiority complex, your never wrong are you?

Have a happy life, but do try to cure your paranoia, you'll feel much better for it.

(You say on your 'Blog' that your 'industry' is education, but for all I know you're just some internet troll claiming the dole and pretendng to have a job.)
 

Quote Mithrelle:

"I said you are throwing out the usual smears (dole scroungers, anarchists, etc etc) used by the police and their apologists".

Remind me, what does 'Unemployed' Nicola Fisher do for a living again?

And will she donate the apparant fifty grand to good causes?
 

The whole thing appears to be Trial by the Media.

Whatever happened it's up to the IPCC to sort it based on ALL the facts and not 5-10 seconds of video tape.

Two things I am certain of however is the very different headlines if the powers in the Control Room had let the demostrators run amok through the City.

Also that Mr Clifford will be doing very nicely out of this one thank you very much.
 

To Anon 10.49 18/04/09 and others (if they are different people) who appear to have asked similar questions: "What do we think is going on?" My guess is that most serving Police Officers who have been reading this particular thread are simply waiting for the facts of this and other incidents to come out. When they do, sensible comment can be made.

As for some of the other comments, a lot will depend on what part of this green and pleasant land you police, whether or not you deal with public order situations and lots of other variables. The Met TSG are a vary small part of a very large organisation. I thought that most professional critics of the police force objected to stereotyping - obviously I was wrong.

In my humble experience most "normal" (yes, I know, there is no such thing) members of the public appear to actually be supportive of much more "hands-on" policing. They feel that the police have become too "soft" along with the rest of the Criminal Justice system.
 

All citiziens in uniform who read this blog should proceed immediately to:
http://cryptome.info/protest-cops/protest-cops.htm.

The photo from Moldova is particularly instructive (cops downing tools and joining the demo).

The games' up for the ruling class. They've stuffed it up for all of us. In uniform or out it, it's only a matter of time before we start making them accountable for their decisions and actions.

If you find yourself in a 'public order' situation, ask yourself whose interests you're really serving (the overtime and pension won't be much of much use in a world of collapsed economies and irrecoverable environments).
 

Im with anon at 0321..
Times coming people when we need to decide if what we do in uniform is going to be supported or criticised all the time.. I've been there in the public order situation when your scared and, as we have seen, is 20 seconds of video representative of the entire situation.. Perhaps all officers questioning what our liability is in public order situations.. I know i will be asking next Public order training day "why should i do this if i'm going to get shit on if i'm deployed.." we volunteer to do public order..if we all unvolunteered where would the managment be then ..or the government for that matter..It would be very much like the Met threatening to down weapons a few years ago in the firearms world...The powers that be shat themselves.. as i said earlier the public are very close to getting the police service they deserve rather than the police service they need.. I'm sick and tired of all the form fillinf and all the political balls that goes on.. the constant stats chasing and sniping from Chiefs who run there own little fiefdom and have there own agenda..Whatever happened to the role of Police Work??

Anglian Militant
 

Naturally you are completely correct as ever, Anglian Militant. Resignation accepted.
 

Anonymous said...

"Naturally you are completely correct as ever, Anglian Militant. Resignation accepted".

Written by someone who really doesn't know the start of their talent.

I fear 'Anglian Militant' is correct. The public IS going to end up with the police service they deserve.
 

1974 Blair Peach killed by police-no one punished.
1996 96 die at Hillsborough due to police incompetance (see Taylor report)-no one punished.
2005 Stockwell shooting- no one punished.
2009 G20 crowd management-won't hold my breath.
2009 Nurse filmed patients (in 2005) to highlight her concerns with their care,hoping to improve the situation-struck off by her professional body(NMC) and loss of job.
Funny old world!
Nurse Paul
 

Mass unvolunteering. Now there's a thought. Who would the wise guys farm their dirty work out to then? And who'd take the fall for them?
 

This ones difficult, I support the police and think they are brave to work amongst riots and can imagine that such a situation, where you are working with unreasonable people who may attack you, can result in 'mistakes'. The officer should not have pushed him, especially as he is walking away, but its hard to judge without hearing what was actually said at the time, did the police speak to him? The footage does make the police look pretty bad, but everyone can make mistakes!
 

Anon @ 5.56. "Everyone can make mistakes"

So it is with most criminals. The greater the number of mistakes, the higher the risk of being caught.