Police caught LIEING about Death of London Protester (Video Proof of police assaulting him unprovok

In the U.S. that would be manslaughter and perhaps homicide, if a civilian did it.

The other police would be accessories to the crime.

I think charges should be brought, and it is a crime not to. Charges on all of them, the whole gang of thugs, the one who acted and the ones who did nothing to stop him.

Charges should be brought on all of them, it would help put an end to this mentality of police being authorized to commit mayhem in the streets in the name of law and order.

How many times do we read about some Sheriff considering pressing charges because he saw some video on Utube.

Where is Scotland Yard?

A crime has been committed, a man is dead, and jackbooted thugs wander the street freely and openly. They wander around assaulting innocents wearing armor and carrying clubs.

God save the Queen, if he dosen't nobody will!



[edit on 10-4-2009 by Cyberbian]

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Cyberbian]

reply to post by Cyberbian


For what feels like the 50th time:

The IPCC are currently undergoing a criminal investigation into this.

They have suspended the officer in question after he came forward. He and other witnesses will be interviewed in due course.

They have also called for anyone with photographic or video evidence to let them have copies.

They have ordered a new autopsy to confirm the cause of death.

Following all of this, which will take some time, they will pass the file to the CPS, who will then decide if charges should be brought.

They should have locked up the lot of them!


Investigating one is not sufficient.


A crime has been committed.


If it were you or I walking the street, in armor and assaulting people because they were in front of you walking too slow for your satisfaction, and one died; the lot of us would be behind bars.

reply to post by Cyberbian


They are not investigating one particular officer, but the whole incident.

If they feel other charges are approproate, then further action will be taken. Alternatively, the other officers may be sugject to internal disciplinary measures, especially the CO on scene I would think.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
A crime has been committed.

How do you know a crime has been committed? The investigation isn't even over yet, give it a chance.

I am sure that when it's done, the correct action will be taken, but whatever happened to innocence before guilt?

You'd all expect the same to apply to you, even if you'd chopped up babies and served them to old people for lunch, then burnt down the old folks home while flinging cats onto the fire for good measure..

You'd still want a fair trial and not a kangaroo court, I am sure...

The mainstream media have for the past few months been hyping up the public by talking about this summer as the summer of discontent. thier crystal balls have obviously seen it.

This incident will in my opinion bring this to fruition, even if the officer in case is fast-tracked and charged and found guilty it gives those that want to riot the perfect excuse. this will only bring about more powers for the police, protests whether they peacefull or violent will never bring about any change in this country, those in control have the capabilities to control and manipulate a passive or aggressive populace. In my opinion they will use the protests and the threat of terrorism as an excuse to detain anyone who is a potential threat.

Personaly I cut my teeth in the miners strike of 84, and even I'm scared to go out and stand up because after a month in detention without charge my whole life would disspear, I would lose my job which in turn would make me homeless etc.

The PTB are no longer hiding thier intentions because there is no going back now and they cant be stopped,

Be carefull this year people, this is going to be one that will go down in history as the end of personal freedom.

do you reckon they will be a build up of anger or if something like this continued they would be a rebellion?

'How do you know a crime has been committed'

I'd say that was pretty obvious. Regardless of what the guy MAY or may not have said to police, and what is going on around him in terms of OTHER protesters' actions, pushing a man to the ground/striking him with a baton from behind as he walks away clearly in a non confrontational manner is tantamount to an assault - possibly GBH or ABH under UK law. At the very least. If he died as a result of his injuries it would be manslaughter.

I've a feeling no formal charges will end up being brought against this officer - I can see the CPS responses now:

"The officer was in a very stressful difficult situation"

or

"He had been subject to provocation"

Try using any of those defences in a civilian trial and see how sympathetic the judge/jury is...

I'm not in favour of metaphorically lynching anyone - but I think this IS without a doubt a case of dual standards. We have clear video evidence of an assault being broadcast across the world, where the officer concerned is clearly identifiable. The officer should have been formally arrested, and held in custody (or bailed) while the case is investigated by the POLICE - not the IPCC - as would be the case with anyone else who the police had REASON TO BELIEVE had committed a serious assault.


I was there on the day of the protests - not protesting - I just happen to live in The City. Like this man, I had to walk through the areas where protests were taking place, and like this man, I was blocked on several occasions by police, who were acting incredibly aggressively.

When I look at these pictures - I can't help thinking "that could so easily have been me".

When you see someone throwing missiles at police getting hit - etc - you can easily say 'that would never happen to me because I'd never get into that situation". With an attack like this - it could have been any of you. So think about that before you make stupid comments that imply this man somehow deserved this because he may have provoked police somehow.

The video is very damning and the police involved are probably wishing they could turn back time. I would rather wait to see the results of the investigation that is taking place before I throw the book at this officer. My condolenses to this man's family and friends.

To those saying this policeman "murdered" this civilian are really trying hard to paint the officer in the worst possible light. Judging by this video alone, it would seem he could be charged with manslaughter - but even that is stretching it because the guy was alive and showed movement a few mins after he fell to the ground. (This indicates that the man did not suffer critical injuries as a direct result of being brought to the ground.)

A friendly warning to all those wishing negative things upon this cop: NEVER wish bad upon others. If you truly take pleasure in seeing another person suffer (regardless of their actions) you only stoop to their level.

The issue at hand is whether the senior officer Simon O'Brien, when interviewed on the news, was lying about the specific incident involving Ian Thomlinson. On watching the video clip a 2nd and 3rd time, it becomes apparant that he is referring to a point in time AFTER the depicted scenes, when Ian Thomlinson had collapsed and a protester had notified the police. None of the scenes in that video show this point in time and so the police and paramedics may well have come under fire by missiles.

So, Simon O'Brien was not lying in that video - unfortunately (it'd have been a nice tool to prosecute the riot squads).

That being said, the video evidence still shows a clearly peaceful man viciously attacked from behind and policemen doing nothing to help. I'm glad the officer responsible came forward voluntarily - that's very commendable. But from what I've seen he clearly deserves serious repremanding.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
The video is very damning and the police involved are probably wishing they could turn back time. I would rather wait to see the results of the investigation that is taking place before I throw the book at this officer. My condolenses to this man's family and friends.

I don't think the issue is throwing the book at the officer - I think people are angry now because it appears he's been treated different to how most citizens would be in this situations. The IPCC investigating rather than say another unrelated police force smacks of 'special treatment' and the police protecting their own. Look at results from other IPCC investigations - I can't remember ANY examples of charges every been brought against anyone in high profile cases - like the last time the police 'murdered' someone (and this time it WAS murder) - Jean Charles De Menenez.

It's is an absolute certainty that in the UK, should someone even so much as make a complaint against someone else for assault - never mind having video evidence - the person suspected of the assault would be IMMEDIATELY arrested and taken in, even if not formally charged.

And in the UK it's worth mentioning that the arrest would remain on your 'criminal' record forever, and you would have to submit fingerprints and a DNA sample for cross referencing. Do you think this officer has had to do that? I don't think so.

It's appaling that this officer has been treated differently.

I also remember the recent posts of the BART officers in San Francisco shooting the unarmed, cuffed man not being arrested after the video evidence of that arose.

Police always seem to 'look after their own' and it's not on.

I'm not asking that this guy has the book thrown at him - or that he is lynched or made an example of. I'm just saying it should be the same treatment for everyone - rich or poor - cop or civilian.

reply to post by stumason


All of the pictures and situations you posted need to be dealt with and treated seperately.

Just because someone floors a cop on 1st street, and maybe a guy throws a rock at an officer on 3rd street.., DOES NOT give this CRIMINAL(the cop in question) the right to attack an unarmed man From behind with hands in pockets, walking away on 6th street.

Get it?

Apples and oranges.

If the police officer cannot tell the difference between a hostile person from an innocent chap walking casually down the street with his hands in his pockets no less, they have NO BUSINESS being police officer.

Usually, I give officers plenty of lee-way, and don't like the term "police brutality" being slung around so often, but in this instance, this officer is dead wrong, nd commited a crime, that may very well have resulted in this mans death.


[edit on 10-4-2009 by Nola213]

One of my children's inlaws is a police woman in the UK police.

She finds it 'funny' to beat up drunks with her baton and also amusing when she handcuffs people that she can manipulate their shoulders out of socket and cause them horrendous pain.

She claims that her badge means she can do anything she wants to and she can get away with it.

Her son finds her comments sickening especially when she comes home after a night shift boasting of how many heads she cracked or how much pain she's caused.

We expect our police to be firm but also to be fair.
They appear to be targeting people with mental instability to employ on the force and perhaps that is what they want as we can see from their behaviour.


Perhaps with the De Menezes case the british police started to think this to be true. But hopefully, the case of Mr Tomlinson might prove them wrong and have them thinking a bit more before they get their kicks from beating the rest of us up.

What goes around.....comes around!


I would still like not to tar all the police in the UK with the same brush as I did locally see a police man defend a little middle aged lady from a wheel clamper and he did not allow the clamper to tow away the car before her husband came back to pay off this legalised mugger!!!
He stood by and allowed this couple to be mugged 'legally'!

Originally posted by stumason
Hmm, lots of vitriol against the police,

That's because anyone with a sense of fair play and decency is appalled at the conduct, civil rights abuses and lack of sensitivity training these morons have. Not to mention they are a pack of liars as is indicated by the blatant liar representative in the video.

but not much in the way of acknowledgement of the fact that the IPCC has now begun a criminal investigation, ordered a new autopsy and has suspended the officer in question,

Would you like us to throw a party for him?

who I might add volunteered his identity rather than hiding behind his ski-mask and riot shield.

After he found out the video was all over the Internet.

Let Justice run it's course before spouting stupid lines supporting wide spread civil disorder or comparing it to the Rodney King debacle, which is another thing entirely..

I do not see one post where anyone is supporting wide spread civil disorder. Comparing one incident of police abuse to another is logical and reasonable. Perhaps reviewing incidents caught on video might help the cops in their sesitivity and civil rights protection training.

Just because you guys think there will be trouble, most people won't bother going onto the streets and tearing up the place over one guys accidental death.

Accidental Death? I call it wrongful use of force causing death. Who is spouting the stupid lines here?

Thankfully, the British public is a little more sensible than the gangbanger population of downtown LA.....

More sensible? That's too funny

Over all I'm going to have to give you five thumbs down on a scale of one to five.

Don't forget this video either, it proves that the protesters did everything they could!

www.guardian.co.uk...

Also, note this in particular:

Police move quickly to push away those protesters and bystanders who were aiding Tomlinson, including a man on the phone to the ambulance service. The ambulance service wanted to be put in contact with the officer, who declined to take the call.

Keep in mind what the official statement was in the OP's video and you can see how much they lie and cheat to protect their own thuggery. It's disgusting.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Cyberbian
A crime has been committed.

How do you know a crime has been committed? The investigation isn't even over yet, give it a chance.

I am sure that when it's done, the correct action will be taken, but whatever happened to innocence before guilt?

The guy was caught on video laying the smack down on a man unprovoked. It's a slam dunk that the cop is guilty.

There is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty. When a person is charged, the police, prosecutors, court staff, judges, and most of the brain washed public assume that person is GUILTY.

Originally posted by stumason
Hmm, lots of vitriol against the police, but not much in the way of ackowledgement of the fact that the IPCC ... has suspended the officer in question, who I might add volunteered his identity rather than hiding behind his ski-mask and riot shield.

Only because by process of elimination they would have figured out who he was. He was the only one **NOT** wearing appauleps at the time. They could soon find out who it was anyway. He thinks by turning himself in now that he'll get a lighter sentence (or even no sentence at all).

Just because you guys think there will be trouble, most people won't bother going onto the streets and tearing up the place over one guys accidental death. Thankfully, the British public is a little more sensible than the gangbanger population of downtown LA.....

Accidental? Who are you kidding? If the Police officer hadn't hit him, he likely would not be dead now.

Originally posted by Elliot
One of my children's inlaws is a police woman in the UK police.

She finds it 'funny' to beat up drunks with her baton and also amusing when she handcuffs people that she can manipulate their shoulders out of socket and cause them horrendous pain.

She claims that her badge means she can do anything she wants to and she can get away with it.

Her son finds her comments sickening especially when she comes home after a night shift boasting of how many heads she cracked or how much pain she's caused.

We expect our police to be firm but also to be fair.
They appear to be targeting people with mental instability to employ on the force and perhaps that is what they want as we can see from their behaviour.


Perhaps with the De Menezes case the british police started to think this to be true. But hopefully, the case of Mr Tomlinson might prove them wrong and have them thinking a bit more before they get their kicks from beating the rest of us up.

What goes around.....comes around!


I would still like not to tar all the police in the UK with the same brush as I did locally see a police man defend a little middle aged lady from a wheel clamper and he did not allow the clamper to tow away the car before her husband came back to pay off this legalised mugger!!!
He stood by and allowed this couple to be mugged 'legally'!

I know a lot of people find these kind of stories hard to believe - but I've too lived with a cop before - the husband of a former housemate - he was British Transport Police in London, so not even a proper 'street' type cop.

But he'd come back on football match days and boast about how he loved getting into rucks with the supporters. He once broke a guys arm with a baton when I knew him and was really boastful about having done it - said it was awesome and was constantly telling the story at the pub.

He was a complete meat head - kind of meant well - but had comepletely the wrong attitude. Sure he didn't want to go out beating up old women - but his attitude was that if you were in someway undesirable - say, drunk on a Friday night, or a protestor, then you were fair game.

A lot of people might have that attitude - but to act on it as a police officer is totally wrong.

I think there are plenty of police that do a great job (mainly older guys in my experience) - and there will always be bad apples. But my gripe with the London protests is that it almost seemed to have been a policy decision from higher up to be 'proactive' and 'highly aggressive' with ANYONE in the protest zones.

The whole tactical setup that day - penning people in, deploying mounted divisions at the lines, deploying paramilitary type units (not the riot police pictured - there were also some VERY scary tooled up types around in US built armoured Chevvy trucks)... all seems to point to the fact that the police were on an offensive. Which is wrong. Their duty in this situation is to keep the peace and NOT take a political angle on the protest at all.

Like i keep saying, people that join the police are wannabee serial killers.

Just join the police and have vendettas for life, with no consideration for the victims you haress. Pure scum

The policea re probably plotting after this, that they will just destroy more lifes. scum

Mod note: Please confine your opinions to the topic. Your opinions of other members are irrelevant to the discussion. -- Majic



[edit on 4/10/2009 by Majic]