It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

G20 death was not heart attack

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by purehughness

Interestingly, in a lot of these complaint accounts you hear now, it's often the case that the office in question isn't wearing the numbers to identify him by. Seems a lot conveniently 'forgot' and went out to pick a fight. Like with the officer who clobbered that woman with his riot gauntlet and baton. Animals.


I made a post on an early G8 thread claiming that I witnessed many officers putting tape over their ID numbers... When I did, I got loads of replies claiming I was lying or making it up...

I think I am no vindicated... Strange how so many people will leap to the police's defence and just blanketly refute anyone's claim that they may have done wrong...

Once again ATS - stick only to facts, leave personal prejudice out of it... The truth will out.




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RE2505
Here is my footage of the riot police that FIRST assaulted Ian Tomlinson. (Notice full black riot gear) This took place minutes before the second assault. Ian was facing the police line with his back towards a police van when two or three officers broke the line, bounded forwards and pushed Ian to the pavement then proceded to manhandle him down the road. The photographs and the video do not show the initial attack but plenty of people witnessed it. I am the guy with the bike. Sorry the picture is an external link for some reason and I can't upload it to ATS.





Interestingly you can make out clear profiles of the police officers involved here.

If the Met Police force were to take biometric stats from all of their officers as they would love to require all of the rest of the population to provide, I'm sure they could all easily be identified via things like 'the shape of their nose' or 'the distance from their eyes to their bottom lip'.

Interesting isn't it how when we actually have an incident where 100's of cameras no doubt have footage of the attack, it seems the only evidence that's forthcoming is that of private citizens willing to stand up and bravely put forward the footage they (in england at least) have illegally shot of the police.

If it were the other way around, and a police officer had died, I think they'd have 100's of tapes worth of 'damning'' footage to back up their point of view...

Do surveillance cameras only work when the police are out of shot? I don't think so. I hope the CPS have a lot more footage than that submitted by the public. Otherwise, I smell a rat. Or a pig.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I'd like to know if anyone can to clarify the following:

In the UK, aren't the police meant to be politically impartial? i.e. they are not allowed to be deployed 'against' the general populous in order to achieve some kind of political aim?

Maybe I'm wrong, but on the day of G8, the police were clearly deployed 'AGAINST' the protesters, rather than deployed in a capacity to 'keep the peace' and stand neutral - only intervening to prevent criminal damage and violent assault etc.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by daveyp1986
Checkered past....? Can u ellaborate?


Dr Patel has been in trouble with the General Medical Council in the past due to another case where he worked with the police. In the previous case, a woman (Sally White) was said to have died through natural causes - as a coincidence, like Tomlinson, White was said to have died of a heart attack - even though the actual death was suspicious (suspicious enough for the police to be involved in the first place).

However, one of the chief suspects, the man who actually owned and lived in the flat where White was found, turned out to be an alcoholic with mental health problems who later murdered two women.



If that is the case then then Dr Patel should not be in the position he is in. He is playing with people's souls and to gain anything from that is tantamount to being corrupt and morally evil. The sly Bastard.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
The sad thing is, the huge majority of people that would have cared, will not care, and will never even know.

I've seen the media do this crap a lot - knowingly report things wrong when the emotional level is a bit high, wait, wait, wait, wait...ok, water is cool enough now, we can tell the truth.

No one will notice except the most passionate of the bunch, and we'll bury anything else in the back of the paper.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dutty_Rag
I'd like to know if anyone can to clarify the following:

In the UK, aren't the police meant to be politically impartial? i.e. they are not allowed to be deployed 'against' the general populous in order to achieve some kind of political aim?

Maybe I'm wrong, but on the day of G8, the police were clearly deployed 'AGAINST' the protesters, rather than deployed in a capacity to 'keep the peace' and stand neutral - only intervening to prevent criminal damage and violent assault etc.




From what i understand (and i'll stand corrected if you can prove otherwise) but i was always under the impression that by law, the police are deployed to ensure a safe and peaceful march for the protestors. But unfortunately in this case it seems one of two things have taken place.

A) Either an order was given to treat all protestors as potential rioters (hence the violence)

B) The Police got scared (possibly due to the media 'summer of rage' bollocks) which was currently doing the rounds and faced with a large amount of people from every class, creed, society and interest...

or C) The police were deploying units who were not fit for their role as peace keepers, and despite a little anarchy, they (again noting they were unfit for their role) acted in truly 'us and them attitude' and lashed out at anyone, not through pressure but through a combination of orders, ignorance and fear...

D) is a combination of the above.... but ever expanding...

I'm gonna say one thing here. as a witness of the events of the same day but much later in the evening... The police who showed restraint, then fair play to you guys.... you were placed in a position that challenged you and you kept your cool...

But to the bastards who lashed out without cause, shame on you....

[edit on 18-4-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by baughany
When will we in the UK wake up and realise that while we weren't looking, the Govt took over and we're all servants.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by baughany]


I'm confused by this to be honest. Whilst I agree and appreciate with the actual sentiment, what you've actually said suggests that it was somehow different once upon a time. It hasn't, it's always been like this. We went through who knows how many years of tribal leadership which lead to mini-kingdoms and then eventually a monarchy. We were all, to varying degrees, servants then.

Then, for a few brief moments, it looked like it could be different such as revolts following the Black Death, the creation of what became the modern parliament and voting for non-property owners &c. However, the reality is that for the vast majority of us things haven't really changed.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
If that is the case then then Dr Patel should not be in the position he is in. He is playing with people's souls and to gain anything from that is tantamount to being corrupt and morally evil. The sly Bastard.


No, he shouldn't. This was one of the big concerns about the post-mortem; it was bad enough that the convenient 'heart attack' conclusion was made but it was also Patel that conducted the post-mortem itself. He shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the case.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jericanman
probably by coming down harder on their laws regarding not being able to film the police. kind of eradicating half the problem in their eyes


Then that could be challenged in the courts under the humans rights act. The Government knows it has to have a balance between Policing and Human rights, Human rights of the citizen.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Third incident hs been brought to the attention of Scotand Yard, This just being reported on the news:




Third G20 case referred to IPCC

A third incident involving policing of the G20 protest in London has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).


BBC NEWS

So more comes to light, the police have basically been accused of looking for a fight that day of the protests. Ad no this is not going to go away, those officers, should be charged.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
If that is the case then then Dr Patel should not be in the position he is in.


Absolutely, but on the other hand, doesn't occur to you - it's no accident that a man without professional integrity would be the Home Office pathologist.


The first post mortem on Ian Tomlinson, which found he died of natural causes, was conducted by a forensic pathologist once disciplined about his professional conduct by the General Medical Council.

Ian Tomlinson death: first pathologist once reprimanded about his professional conduct Telegraph, 18/04/09



Film showing assaults on two more protesters will be handed to MPs this week

EVEN amid the background shouts and screams of the G20 protests, the crack of riot shield on skull is clearly audible...

Attack video has G20 police in panic TimesOnline, 19/04/09


[edit on 18-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
The presence of abdominal bleeding doesn't automatically establish that any violence was committed. Aside from trauma, such bleeding can result from illness and medicines that prevent blood clotting.

The victim's liver was said to be diseased. This can cause severe problems with the blood not being able to clot. It can also cause unusual strain on blood vessels, making them more prone to rupturing.

My guess is that the victim's health problems made him especially vulnerable to trauma, even trauma that wouldn't cause much damage in a healthy person. Some bullying officer gave him a shove, and unfortunately for everyone, the victim's body collapsed as a result.

I seriously doubt that anything would have been done, had there not been so many videos of the incident. Without them, it would have been a case of "resisting arrest" or "disorderly conduct", that unfortunately resulted in the death of the prisoner.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
You know I am glad this came out. I dont think all police are bad but this was just unacceptable.

the other thing that really annoyed me was even if it had been a heart attack I would hardly call it natural causes because being assualted buy a large group of thugs ,or riot police in this case, could bring a Heart attack on.

I think we should be careful not to demoise our Police force as I am sure there a good people in the force but we must be vigilant in finding the ones that arent and get them out before someone else suffers a similar fate.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by tempest501]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


I think no right minded person can now deny that there were shades of Thatchers "enemy within" attitude apparent within the Police during the G20 protests. Protests which which were predominantly peaceful, yes there would have been "barracking" etc insults hurled, but it only appears to be Police officers causing violence.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
The presence of abdominal bleeding doesn't automatically establish that any violence was committed. Aside from trauma, such bleeding can result from illness and medicines that prevent blood clotting.

The victim's liver was said to be diseased. This can cause severe problems with the blood not being able to clot. It can also cause unusual strain on blood vessels, making them more prone to rupturing.

My guess is that the victim's health problems made him especially vulnerable to trauma, even trauma that wouldn't cause much damage in a healthy person. Some bullying officer gave him a shove, and unfortunately for everyone, the victim's body collapsed as a result.

I seriously doubt that anything would have been done, had there not been so many videos of the incident. Without them, it would have been a case of "resisting arrest" or "disorderly conduct", that unfortunately resulted in the death of the prisoner.


Who says the victims liver was diseased? What evidence is there that he would have been arrested for resisted arrest or caused any disorder. Your assumption that the matter would have been laid to rest is accurate, however the assumption that the media fed reports by the police and coroner are yet to be proven.

This is not the first time the reputation and condition of a victim of police violence has been dragged through the mud, in a poor effort to cover bad practice and criminal activity by the police.

One only has to think of a potential suicide bomber- who failed to stop - was wearing a bulky jacket that could have hidden a bomb - who proberly wasn't even in the country legally and you arrive at a Brazillian wearing a light jacket being shot in the head 11 times.

If it were not for the persistance of his family this matter would also have been laid to rest.





posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Sadly this incident has been used by the media to turn public opinion against the police and has led to serious disilusionment amongst decent policie officers who really care about protecting the community in an ever more difficult enivironment and in the face of ridiculous rules that give criminals far more rights than the rest of us have.

Believe the media at you risk.

When it is proven they quote people as saying the opposite of what they actually said*, can you really trust them? Who do you believe?


* okay, I only know this for fact with regards weather stories, but knowing they misquote out of context means I no longer believe anything they say or depict. Bad stories sell. They have already brought down banks and caused a recession. What next?


Look beyond the obvious for the far more damaging conspiracy!



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I'm not believing the media, i'm believing my own eyes and experience and also the footage that shows unprovoked attacks on members of the public.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by Essan
 


I'm not believing the media, i'm believing my own eyes and experience and also the footage that shows unprovoked attacks on members of the public.


Which is 100% provided by the media

The media rule the country. People believe what they show and what they do not show no-one knows......

The media are known to lie. So do we believe them when they say what we want to believe?

There's a conspriacy here, and no-one wants to see it



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Erm....

No it isn't.

The media picked up on the videos that were doing the rounds on the internet. It's called 'jumping on the bandwagon'....

I was also there. Any comments on that fact? Or do you doubt my eyes also?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join