Footage shows G20 death man push

[Fop 1]

Why should I answer any preposterous question you pose, when you refuse to answer any reasonable question posed by any of the members on this board?

 

Those aren't the only options to your question so I refuse to answer on the ground that it's ridiculous.

 

Coward.

[The Fish 8989]

fair enough, I'll answer any maniacal query you care to pose on any subject, on the condition that you trawl through every post on this forum that has posed, to you, a reasonable question and answer them fully and without your predilection for cowardly obfuscation and deliberate insinterpretation.

 

[Fop 1]

fair enough, I'll answer any maniacal query you care to pose on any subject, on the condition that you trawl through every post on this forum that has posed, to you, a reasonable question and answer them fully and without your predilection for cowardly obfuscation and deliberate insinterpretation.

 

 

So:

 

a. b. or c.?

[The Fish 8989]

So you wont then. Which means you're a coward, rendering all your nonsense as, well... Nonsensical. Great.

 

I win. Fop loses bad times for you Fopster. Perhaps you should consider a new careeer path?

Edited August 7, 2009 by The Fish

[Fop 1]

So you wont then. Which means you're a coward, rendering all your nonsense as, well... Nonsensical. Great.

 

I win. Fop loses bad times for you Fopster. Perhaps you should consider a new careeer path?

Fop will, you just have to do what you said and answer.

 

So a. b. or c.?

[The Fish 8989]

In answer to your ridiculous question, which takes premise A and applies it to a trouser of rabid ferrets.

 

I'd say middle ground is a.

 

Now, I expect you answer every question you've been asked in full and with no dodging, no deliberate misinterpretation and no... Fop-ness.

 

Sir, you have the floor.

[The Fish 8989]

Sir, you have the floor.

 

 

[Fop 1]

In answer to your ridiculous question, which takes premise A and applies it to a trouser of rabid ferrets.

 

I'd say middle ground is a.

 

Now, I expect you answer every question you've been asked in full and with no dodging, no deliberate misinterpretation and no... Fop-ness.

 

Sir, you have the floor.

 

 

So you agree with Fop then and are a staunch opponent of the police action.

[The Fish 8989]

I'm afraid you'll have to fulfill your part of the agreement before I answer any further derisible questions from yourself.

 

...the condition that you trawl through every post on this forum that has posed, to you, a reasonable question and answer them fully and without your predilection for cowardly obfuscation and deliberate insinterpretation.

 

Just in case you forgot.

[Fop 1]

I'm afraid you'll have to fulfill your part of the agreement before I answer any further derisible questions from yourself.

 

...the condition that you trawl through every post on this forum that has posed, to you, a reasonable question and answer them fully and without your predilection for cowardly obfuscation and deliberate insinterpretation.

 

Just in case you forgot.

 

 

Too late. Ask your Dad how he used to get a confession.

[The Fish 8989]

So you're a coward and a liar and a poor WUM? Fair enough.

 

Fop is no more.

 

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I offer this victory to the Glory of Thor and hope some time to join him in Valhalla.

[Fop 1]

So you're a coward and a liar and a poor WUM? Fair enough.

 

Fop is no more.

 

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I offer this victory to the Glory of Thor and hope some time to join him in Valhalla.

 

You think your Dad is a coward and a liar and a poor WUM?

 

 

maybe so, you'd be in a better position to judge.

[The Fish 8989]

That's weak, Fop... even for you.

[Fop 1]

That's weak, Fop... even for you.

 

Weak perhaps, but effective and completely true, Fop just used standard police interview tactics successfully........ and there can't be anything at all wrong with that, can there?

[The Fish 8989]

That's weak, Fop... even for you.

 

Weak perhaps, but effective and completely true, Fop just used standard police interview tactics successfully........ and there can't be anything at all wrong with that, can there?

Liar, coward and racist.

[Fop 1]

That's weak, Fop... even for you.

 

Weak perhaps, but effective and completely true, Fop just used standard police interview tactics successfully........ and there can't be anything at all wrong with that, can there?

Liar, coward and racist.

 

Is that why he left the police?

[Fop 1]

Memos reveal how police investigated Ian Tomlinson's death at G20 protests

 

Four months after Ian Tomlinson died at the G20 protests, on 1 April, his family has accused police of mounting a cover-up. For six days the investigation into his death was run by City of London police, which assigned the family a liaison officer. He was Harry Adams, of the force's counter-terrorism and specialist directorate. Now extracts from his personal logs, which give an hour-by-hour update of his contacts with the family, have been seen by the Guardian. Key passages are published here, along with contextual explanations by Paul Lewis

 

 

 

Thursday 2 April

 

13.00 Meet in person with family members at Bishopsgate police station … outline the role of family liaison officer and the purpose of the deployment … discussion concerning the obtaining of CCTV/video and other evidence to ascertain why their loved one ended up on the floor initially.

 

17.30 Julia [Tomlinson, Ian's widow] stated she would like to attend the scene where he died so that she could pay her respects/lay flowers. Tell Julia that due to administrative complications the postmortem has been cancelled for today and rearranged for 4pm tomorrow … still waiting for CCTV to show why he was initially on the ground.

 

▲ Analysis From the outset, it was clear that video footage would prove crucial to the inquiry. So too were press relations, and the family want to know why no witness appeals were released in the immediate aftermath of his death. It is still not known why the first postmortem was postponed, or why it was conducted by a forensic pathologist who did not have a contract with City of London police or the Met.

 

Friday 3 April

 

13.15 Meet family at Liverpool Street station [en route to scene of death]. Discussion that one witness described [how] their Ian had "just run out of batteries".

 

14.10 At Wood Street [police station] for meeting [with senior investigating officer, coroner's officer and press officer]. Family thanked police to date. SIO [senior investigating officer] explained where the investigation was at this stage and that it was still waiting on the results of the postmortem. In any event whatever the result, the inquiry would still try to ascertain the sequence of events prior to Ian being found by police and attempting to be resuscitated.

 

20.05 Phone call from Paul [King, Tomlinson's son] stating that on Indymedia [blog website] … there are interviews with witnesses. [These contradicted police accounts of his death.]

 

20.30 Phone call from [coroner's officer] Barry Tuckfield states that the postmortem has been concluded and that the pathologist has determined a preliminary finding of a natural cause of death, namely coronary heart disease or a sudden heart attack … Speak to Julia. Ask Barry to confirm that … the pathologist/officer is content with the use of "sudden heart attack". Agreed. Speak to SIO re findings. Speak with Paul and Julia and ask if they would be happy with a press release that would use the words of "sudden heart attack".

 

▲ Analysis The report that Tomlinson simply 'ran out of batteries' has turned out to be untrue. The postmortem results were passed from Tuckfield, a coroner's officer and City of London police officer, to Adams, and then relayed to the family. The 'heart attack' finding – discredited when a second pathologist said Tomlinson died of internal bleeding – was communicated to them. But there appears to have been no mention of the large amounts of blood found in his stomach and other injuries, including heavy bruising and a suspected dog bite.

 

Saturday 4 April

 

11.30 Speak with Julia on mobile. Read out the following statement [from the Independent Police Complaints Commission]: "The IPCC has completed the assessment of the death of Ian Tomlinson who died near the G20 protests on Wednesday 1 April 2009. The IPCC commissioner for London, Deborah Glass, said: 'Our independent investigators have looked at the CCTV of the incident, examined statements and police records and spoken to independent witnesses. Based on the information at this stage the IPCC are satisfied that there is no evidence that the actions of those officers present in Cornhill contributed in any way to the sudden and untimely death of an innocent bystander … Witnesses describe a number of people dressed entirely in black who appeared to be running through the protesters towards the police cordons before turning and running away from the police line and running back up Cornhill. It was during this charge and retreat that Mr Tomlinson has seemed to have been caught up in the crowds and a number of people describe seeing him "collapse and fall to the ground" … A postmortem examination carried out last night showed that Mr Tomlinson died as a result of a heart attack. He had no other injuries that would have contributed to his death.'

 

11.40 Speak to Julia re above. Read out contents and she agrees … then bursts into tears.

 

13.40 Phone call from [iPCC] stating that the Guardian/Observer are going to run a story …and it may include a reference to an incident earlier whereby Ian was pushed by a line of police and I may want to bring this to the attention of the family. I stated the family view of linking Ian with the protests, and as such [said] they would be very upset if the article drew the link without evidence.

 

14.15 Phone Julia and inform her of the newspaper article tomorrow. She asks whether Ian had any marks to his face or to the side of his face or any marks on his trousers. I said I didn't know but I would ask. The reason … is that when [looking] on the picture on the internet it looked like he was marked and that he looked like he had fallen and was in danger or confused.

 

14.20 SIO states that there were no marks to his face or side of face. I said I was concerned about feeding the family with conflicting information as there was so much in the press it was confusing for them, I said I would only deal in facts.

 

▲ Analysis The IPCC, which had been 'assessing' City of London police's investigation, was on the verge of withdrawing its involvement. Its conclusion: there was 'no evidence' police 'contributed in any way' to Tomlinson's death. The IPCC's explanation that Tomlinson was caught amid attacks by protesters 'dressed entirely in black' was also misleading. However, the IPCC statement was never made public

 

Sunday 5 April

 

8.50 Phone call from [Tomlinson's son]. "It's those … coppers that pushed him, it's in the papers."

 

9.15 [Meet family] at Bishopsgate police station. IPCC … I said that the police did not know what had happened and that everyone named in the press articles would be … traced and interviewed so a full account can be obtained rather than opinion on scenarios … IPCC's [senior investigator] introduced himself and explained his role … he states that he was content with the investigation so far and saw nothing of concern.

 

10.30 At area Ian died … became aware that [Guardian reporter] had spoken to the family … he said he was in possession of witness statements and pictures that showed the police had assaulted Ian prior to his death … I asked for [the reporter's] business card and asked that the family do not speak to the press until I have had time to speak with the press office.

 

▲ Analysis The publication of pictures showing Tomlinson at the feet of riot police, along with allegations from witnesses that he had been assaulted, made the family deeply suspicious. They believe there was a deliberate attempt to discourage them from speaking to reporters.

 

Monday 6 April

 

20.25 Phone call from [Tomlinson's son] ... I asked how the family meeting went ... SIO agreed there was a mark on Ian's thigh but they couldn't be sure as to the cause. It could have been a baton, it could have been the kerb ... he said the same thing about the hole in his shin and the hole in his calf ... he said they were shown CCTV of [Tomlinson] walking through the crowd as normal and then lose him behind the clock for 2/3 minutes and then see a number of protesters running out and Ian comes out holding his right side and obviously in bits ... [family] said [Tomlinson] had marks on his face so a second postmortem may show that.

 

▲ Analysis With mounting evidence of police wrongdoing, the IPCC began "managing" City of London police's inquiry into Tomlinson's death, but still resisted opening a full investigation. Adams was replaced by IPCC family liaison officers, but there was some period of overlap when he was still communicating with the family.

 

Tuesday 7 April

 

13.50 Phone call received from [Tomlinson's son] he said his brother Paul is happy to do a press conference with a solicitor. I have said that I strongly advise against that until he has spoken with [solicitor] at length … If the request was to be an open question forum as in a conference I would have to consider the welfare and mental aptitude of whoever was to take part as to whether they could deal with such an aggressive robust form of questioning … It was not about covering anything up, it is just that it is a process that we cannot control and it is very aggressive.

 

18.20 Phone call [Tomlinson's son] on his mobile to tell him there was video footage released on the Guardian website and I was about to go and see it. He said he knew and Julia and Paul were on their way to the Guardian to see [the reporter] so they could view the video.

 

18.25 Speak to [Tomlinson's son]. State that I have seen the video and it showed his dad walking with his hands in his pockets and being pushed from behind. He fell forwards to the ground. There is also suggestion of a baton strike … I said I was a little annoyed at [the reporter] for not giving it to us earlier.

 

19.30 Speak to [Tomlinson's son] and say that the IPCC were on their way to seize the video … He said his mum was completely in bits and obviously very emotional.

 

20.40 Paul said that the Guardian said they got [the video] from a fella in New York. I said well OK, the IPCC and the investigation will look into that but in any event I told you from day one that out there somewhere was a video or stills that showed what happened so I am relieved we now have it … I asked if there was anyone they could speak to that would give them confidence that there would be no cover-up, such as the chair of the IPCC.

 

▲ Analysis The family believe they were discouraged from speaking to the media. Contrary to Adams's notes, neither police nor IPCC had the power to 'seize' the footage of the assault on Tomlinson from the Guardian. City of London police and the IPCC instead came to the newspaper's offices, and asked that the video be removed from the website because it was 'jeopardising' the inquiry.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/07/i...th-police-memos

 

 

 

 

So the Guardian (so Chris should agree) says it is yet more police lies (yes Fishy police lie all the time to get what they want, so if it's good enough for them, then it should be good enough for your Dad and Fop So what are you whingeing about? ) and another attempted "cover up".

[Fop 1]

 

 

 

Nice compilation of the video of the attack. Interesting to see not just how few officers have any direct form of identification, but how many actively take steps (face obscuring balaclavas) to hide their identity.

[ewerk 26342]

Officer faces G20 assault charge

 

The Crown Prosecution Service says there is sufficient evidence to charge a police officer with the assault of a protester during London's G20 protests.

 

Demonstrators posted footage on Youtube of a police officer striking Brighton woman Nicola Fisher on 2 April 2009.

 

Ms Fisher, 35, was one of two women to complain about the conduct of the Sgt Delroy (Tony) Smellie.

 

Prosecutors say there is insufficient evidence to charge the officer in relation to the second complaint.

 

[Fop 1]

Sgt Smellie