The Guardian has a particlarly disturbing film of Ian Tomlinson being pushed over by a police officer. Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets, with his back to police and was walking away from them. He was pushed by an officer, and fell over with his hands still in his pockets. 
Ian Tomlinson died later.
There were no edits in this film as far as I could see, no immediate threat to Police from Tomlinson – yet he was pushed from behind by a policeman in riot gear. Is this policing we should accept? Is this an example of Police showing restraint, good discipline and bravery? What excuse can the police come up with to excuse this excessive use of force? A man died soon after this action. There is a possible causal link – such is not beyond the bounds of possibility and may yet be confirmed by experts.
Make you own mind up when you see the film footage.
See also: Is this the type of Policing we want in our country and the comments.
You’re right, Mike. I’m usually slow to criticise the police: even though I was once wrongfully arrested myself, I think it’s easy to complain about what they do, and more difficult to imagine the alternatives they reject from the non-ideal options open to them.
But this footage shows something clearly wrong. I’m sure there must be a causal think, though I don’t say the police killed this man – that’s OTT. You can’t know that pushing or truncheoning a man to the ground will cause a heart attack. But the point is that he shouldn’t have been pushed to the ground anyway – what the video shows is a disgrace. If he was failing to move on when “asked” to (which we have no reason to suspect: I’m merely anticipating possible defences) , they should have arrested him.
You’re quite right that what’s shown there was unacceptable, excessive force. It’s fashionable at the moment to talk about what British values are: what’s for certain is that that kind of policing is not in line with the no guns, tell-you-the-time policing by consent that we traditionally prefer here.
This video footage which I saw live on Sky News last Wednesday is another example of police walloping someone from behind, 1:51 in:
I’m not even a sympathiser of the protest, but policing must be fair and proportionate.
In the long run episodes like this will erode public’s trust of police, at a time when the police need the public’s trust.
Meanwhile in the US peaceful marches were allowed to converge on Washington. Note no kettling, no violence.
Yes some of the crowd have ulterior motives but if the police hadn’t locked people in 50 minutes into the demo then all would have probably passed off peacefully.
Note also the expectations of violence were created by police and Home Office briefings to the press in the months leading up. Summer of Rage? Who invented that phrase?
No, the police have got to stop abusing powers, including the reported use of PACE Section 17 powers to perform a dragnet search for those wanted for questioning in relation to burglary of RBS. The law is clear in this – Section 17 powers can only be used to prevent a crime or breach of peace/public order. NOT to look for suspects who they don’t even know are there.
Yes the police have a difficult task, yes there sections of the population who want to cause trouble but history has shown time and time again that you get further with an offering of honey than a threat of a fist.
Sigh, you’re completely correct Me, this “Summer of Rage” is being entirely created by the people terrified it might happen. Self fulfilling expectation anyone? As I said on your previous post on this topic Charon, at the protest the BBC looked like they were rooting for violence, as did all the other reporters. They have no-one to blame but themselves, and the shops which boarded up windows and allowed themselves to be cowed into submission over a threat that hadn’t even occurred.
Back to the video, there is nothing surprising here. My heart and deepest sympathy goes out to the family of Mr. Tomlinson. At least this tragedy might end up in some difficult questions being asked. Whether the answers are good enough remains to be seen. The “push first ask questions later” Policing strategy is one which must be questioned. Due to the time gap and all the other factors it is highly unlikely blame will be placed on the Police however.
As to British values, we don’t remember enough of our past to have a clue what makes us British, let alone what values we hold anymore. It is deeply saddening. Experience, expertise, excellence and education. We have failed at them all. In a slightly less romanticised view, the biggest failing is in our honour and reserve, neither of which we possess much of anymore.
This footage makes me despair……. and my sympathy goes to Mr Tomlinson’s family….
I believed standards of policing were better than this.
Was it right for Mr Tomlinson who was walking peacefully ahead of police to be struck from behind across the legs with a stick by a police officer? No
Was it right for the officer to push him hard to the ground? No
Was it right for that officer and fellow officers to fail to assist him when he had fallen over? No
I suspect the medical evidence will not establish whether the blows caused the heart attack, but to my mind this behaviour is not appropriate or acceptable.
I thought police training had improved in recent years but I could be wrong about this…… certainly whatever training this police officer received did not help him that day
Cybil, indeed you are right to have concerns regarding the chance that medical evidence will show cause. I’m told in such circumstances it’s nearly impossible to know for sure, and usually the pathologist will simply make any relevant medical history known. In the end death is by legal definition when the heart ceases to function so everyone by this definition dies of a heart attack!
Recent notable case history includes the overturn on appeal (13th Dec 2007) of 3 youths convicted of murdering Ernest Norton after the defence successfully argued it could not be proved that the attack by throwing stones at Mr Norton brought on his heart attack that subsequently killed him.
In the above appeal, the defence showed that Mr Norton had a history of heart trouble including a triple bypass some 40 years earlier.
What concerns me more than the thuggery, which I fear will also be a feature of the Met, is that we have a police force which includes numpties.
I was unable to attend the protest due to an overwhelming disinterest in the event, but everything I have seen since suggests that the place was chock full of news crews and amateurs with mobile phone cameras and camcorders etc.
Did it not occur to our thicko plod thug, or indeed his superiors, that there was a high chance that an unprovoked attack on an innocent man in broad daylight might just, possibly, get recorded.
I am famed for being totally crap at criminal law, but might there be an egg shell skull aspect, and manslaughter ?
@CG “You can’t know that pushing or truncheoning a man to the ground will cause a heart attack.”
In R v Blaue [1975] EWCA Crim 3 it was said,
“ It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them.”
The question is but for the assault, would Tomlinson be alive?
If he would be, the person who assaulted him is liable for his death.
bar boy – as a youngun (i presume) you may not know much about events 25 years ago (note to regulars: oh lordy! he’s off again) where systematic police violence whether in response to that from pickets or not was a dominant feature of the miners’ strike.
you don’t need a lot of intelligence to be a pc; for riot duty you are trained to expect confrontation and given armour and a weapon. you need to obey your orders and you believe that you are in control. so why would you worry about cameras?
we had a bunch of teenagers at law school as part of an education thing and played out some extracts from a case so they could see what various people do. one question was:
‘if the police right is like the judges of wot is right an wrong yeah? how come they are all racists?’. general murmer of agreement.
many many assumptions in that question but it’s exactly how i felt about the police when in confrontation with them on picket lines and demos. they set dogs on us because they could. they are no more intelligent or less thuggish today. they have been on a tighter rein and, fortunately, many senior officers do not merely parrot the need for accountability, they actually believe it.
however, partly because of the building up in the public minds of threats like islamist bogeymen, partly because of a more authoritarian trend in governement lurching back towards the control-freakery of the thatcher era, the police are responding. and logically, what sort of person is going to want to wear a uniform, tell people what to do and carry a stick? it ain’t gonna be your fun-loving liberal. give a boy a stick and he will find something to hit.
the police are our attack dogs – we need them, but let’s make sure we keep them muzzled in public.
Simply, bless you. Regrettably, however, I am old enough to remember the heyday of the infamous SPG and am also stupid enough to have gone to Orgreave in the days when protesting was mandatory for any self respecting undergrad. These days, I can still get peeved about the smoking ban, but that’s about it.
They seem to quite enjoy harassing him – if you look at the BBC link (easier to pause than Guardian one) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7989027.stm you see at 15 seconds he also gets a shove from the dog handler (almost out of shot, his hand drops back down as the shot comes back onto him), before the massive push from the helmeted cop that bowls him over.
Looks like they were all enjoying having a go at him!
Yes, the police make me feel soooooooooo much safer at the moment. Not.
The video is indeed very disturbing. It suggests disproportionate force, not the measured response we would expect- and are led to believe exists.
As above, “you can’t know that pushing a man….would cause a heart attack”. You take your victim as you find him. He was in his 40′s, I understand, and didn’t look like the most athletic person- he had a belly. Most people would look at that person and know that he is probably at risk of cardiovascular disease and heart attacks just from being an overweight man in his 40′s. It’s not a massive leap to know that if you put someone in a stressful situation, that they may come to harm.
I feel very bad for his family – especially with the suggestion of disinformation from the police.
Thanks to all for your comments and reminders of the egg shell skull rule etc…..
Special thanks to Jennie for the BBC link. I’m going to look at this….
Perhaps the police had enough and wanted to bash some innocent bystander?
A short clip just a few seconds visible here of the police having the tables turned on them… which I havent seen before
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7989027.stm
I am sure that once all the officers involved have had a chance to share notes and get their story straight it will be shown that the victim contributed to his own demise. De Menezes anyone?
bar boy – you are ‘one of us’!. apologies for the egg-sucking lesson.
Jennie
Of course, you’re right, he is shoved by a dog handler, as well as being struck on the back of the knees and pushed hard by the officer in riot gear.
It will be interesting to hear how the police explain their actions. Hopefully Charon you’ll keep us informed?
I suspect the only “complaint” they could have is that Mr Tomlinson wasn’t walking fast enough for their liking ..what a shame they felt they could react as they did to something so innocent.
Have Met police announced what action they have taken concerning these officers (apart from ordering an inquiry)?
As the sorry saga unfolds, further proof if proof were needed that the IPCC is about as much use as men’s tits is paraded for our edification.
And Bozzer’s remarkably quiet, isn’t he?
Cat got your tongue, Bozzer?
[...] better description of it in modern secular Britain. The G20 furore covered elsewhere on my blog (here and here) continued to rage. The Police story changed once the IPCC got involved and it now [...]
3.40
It really needs no comment at all. Absolutely unbelievable.
3.40+
It really needs no comment at all. Absolutely unbelievable.
Sydney
Shocking footage… the Police officer has, I understand, been suspended. No doubt… criminal prosecution will follow?
Thanks for posting…
[...] also: POLICE: What are you going to do now? | Is this the type of policing we want in our [...]