The truth, almost the truth and nothing like the truth

So, the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests is well and truly underway.

Today the police officer who pushed Tomlinson over, minutes before he died, was giving evidence.

Pc Simon Harwood stood by his statement in which he said Mr Tomlinson’s posture was “almost defiant”.

Almost defiant?

So not defiant then.

I’m glad we’ve got that sorted.

Carry on like that and we’ll have criminals pleading ‘almost guilty’.

Giving evidence for the third day, Pc Harwood said he had not expected the newspaper seller to fall over and he had not helped him while he lay on the ground because it was not part of his training.

So, Harwood doesn’t expect someone to fall over when he pushes them. OK, that might not happen every time you push someone, but surely you expect it to happen sometimes.

Oh, and heaven help you if this police officer arrives first on the scene at an accident because there’s fuck all he can do for you due to his lack of first aid training.

Are we really expected to believe that standard basic first aid training is not given to serving police officers out amongst the public?

Matthew Ryder QC, for the Tomlinson family, said Pc Harwood was denying events clearly visible on the video.

He asked Pc Harwood: “Do you agree he had his back to you? We’re all here in this room looking at the video.”

Mr Tomlinson was filmed moments before he died on 1 April 2009

Pc Harwood replied: “No.”

Mr Ryder said: “You’re lying Pc Harwood, I suggest, and you know it.”

To that, Pc Harwood said: “No. I’m just trying to help.”

 

Tomlinson quite clearly has his back to Harwood.

Harwood was trying to help by lying?

Trying to help himself more like…

The officer maintained that “from his angle” it had appeared Mr Tomlinson had not been moving away.

I thought minimum eyesight requirements were rather higher for the Met, as it appears Harwood is virtually blind.

Pc Harwood has already apologised to the Tomlinson family for “any way” he may be responsible for the death.

He has admitted Mr Tomlinson was no threat to him or his colleagues before he hit him with a baton and pushed him.

So, Harwood admits he may be responsible for the death of Tomlinson and, moreover, that he assaulted Tomlinson twice prior to his death.

Members of Mr Tomlinson’s family walked out in tears after hearing the policeman’s denials.

Hardly surprising after Harwood’s behaviour up to that moment.

Pc Harwood, who is suspended from the force on full pay, has been told he will not face any criminal prosecutions over what happened – but he is still facing a Met Police misconduct hearing, due to take place after the inquest.

Off work with full pay and exempt from criminal prosecution?

Now that really is adding insult to injury.

An odd thing about the G20 protests

I’m lucky enough to be married to someone who often forces me to take a reality check when I start to think about conspiracies.

She’s very ‘grounded’ and if she thinks an idea is bonkers then I usually trust her judgement.

However, when even she wonders why the Police kettled G20 protestors outside the defenceless RBS building I start to think that maybe some conspiracies might not just be theoretical…

It’s almost as if someone wanted some trouble to kick off.

Ian Tomlinson – a Daily Mail reader speaks

To be fair to the police, the guy was meandering around aimlessly with no apparant purpose or reason for him being there, and appeared drunk. I would have thought he was a protester, and given that he made no attempt to get out of the way of the police approach (in fact he looks like he is purposely getting in their way) – I would have pushed him out of the way too.

– AA, Herts

AA, you’re a cunt.

Now, fuck off

Another bad law exposed

Er

The police watchdog has said its chairman was wrong to say there was no CCTV footage of an alleged police assault at the G20 protests.

and

It also renewed its appeal for more information from the public, including video footage.

Words (almost) fail me.

It’s bad enough when you’re told one thing and the opposite turns out to be true but quite another when a law has been passed prohibiting members of the public from photographing the police and then the police watchdog appeals for photographs of the police taken by the public…

Yet another bad law drawn up by cunts, debated by cunts and then passed by cunts.


Does the IPCC actually do anything?

How to turn the G20 death drama into a bureaucratic nightmare – Part 2436…

Why the delay?

The IPCC has yet to interview the officer involved but said it intends to “as soon as possible”.

Maybe I’ve been reading too many crime novels, but isn’t it always best to investigate and interview ‘as soon as possible’?

In the case of ‘Officer X’ straight after he made himself known to his superiors would seem to have been a good time therefore.

And now, of course, it’s Easter and I’m guessing that the fuckwads at the IPCC won’t be back at work before next Tuesday at the earliest.

The BBC and weasel words

It’s interesting to note that the BBC News site has gone back to using words like ‘apparently’ in its reporting in the aftermath of Ian Tomlinson’s death.

The criminal inquiry began after video footage emerged of Mr Tomlinson apparently being shoved by a policeman.

Someone a little more cynical than myself might almost be inclined to think that someone at the BBC has been told to be less profligate with the truth.

Meanwhile, the Home Office, the IPCC and the Met also continue to haemorrhage credibility…

More thoughts on the G20 death

You know, if the Met – not to mention the IPCC – had handled the G20 death case a lot better and a lot more quickly then their reputation might not be as crippled as it is at the moment.

Yet, such vacillation and obfuscation might even be beneficial if it forces us to look at what sort of police force we really want.

Yes, one officer – the one who pushed Ian Tomlinson over – is now suspended – a week after the incident – but what about those who were with him and kept silent, even as the Met was sticking to its story that there had been no previous contact between Tomlinson and the police?

Surely such silence was an impediment to the investigation?

It may be that the officers present when Tomlinson was pushed over colluded to cover the incident up or just chose to keep schtum on an individual basis but certainly no-one in that group chose to come forward even when the Guardian video clearly showed that there was indeed ‘contact’.

What we certainly don’t need are any scapegoats or martyrs if we’re to gain anything of lasting value from this pointless and unnecessary death.

Yes, I do value a police force which keeps order where necessary and uses appropriate force but I want that force to be accountable, well-trained and run in the public interest.

As to what happens to people that the police apprehend then let a justice system sort that out, not the officer on the ground, unless it’s a matter of self-defence.

In the case of Ian Tomlinson, it certainly wasn’t.

More right wing sense

Yes, this time it’s the Times.

It looks like the only people with a good word for the police on that day are being marginalised.

Pearls of wisdom from the Torygraph

A great (Torygraph!) article.

The G20 death

I’m leaving the entry regarding Ian Tomlinson’s death in my blog to illustrate the mistake of assuming too much too soon.

I admit that I was wrong in my assumptions and wish to apologise to anyone offended by them.