Protesting the G20 summit

[faceless]

Fucking corrupt police bastards.

[luke]

Ian Tomlinson ruling: we must all fight this whitewash
First Blair Peach. Then Jean Charles de Menezes. Now Ian Tomlinson. It is our duty to raise Cain this time

Hundreds of thousands of us have now seen the footage of the newspaper-seller shambling peacefully home from work. We've seen how, without warning or provocation, PC Simon Harwood attacked him from behind, hitting him with a baton then shoving him to the ground. We know that the officer had unlawfully removed his badge, and that his face was obscured by a balaclava. We know that, a few minutes afterwards, Ian Tomlinson collapsed and died. We also know that the Metropolitan police lied about his death to the media and to Tomlinson's family.

Fifteen months later the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, decides that "there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against [Harwood] for any offence arising from the matter investigated and that no charges should be brought against him". The evidence for his role in Tomlinson's death, Starmer says, is contradictory, and the time limit for pressing lesser charges has sadly expired. Starmer provides no convincing explanation of why it has taken him so long to make his decision, or of why a jury should not be allowed to make its own assessment of the evidence.

Now picture the opposite case: a civilian launching an unprovoked attack on a policeman, captured on film, which is immediately followed by the policeman's death. The Crown Prosecution Service ponders and dithers before deciding that the assailant should get away scot free. Implausible? You have just understood that in the United Kingdom equality before the law exists only in textbooks.

The excuse Starmer gave is that conflicting medical evidence means that a causal link between the assault on Tomlinson and his death could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the evidence is not consistent. But nor is its quality.

Starmer's decision not to prosecute PC Harwood rests on the first autopsy, conducted by the pathologist Dr Freddy Patel. Other pathologists have expressed astonishment that Dr Patel was chosen for this case. A Home Office standards committee had already ruled that he had not maintained professional standards in three other cases, after he had failed to detect what appeared to be clear evidence of injuries. He is facing a disciplinary hearing before the General Medical Council for alleged incompetence in 26 cases.

This isn't the first run-in he has had with the council. In 1999 he was reprimanded by the GMC for speaking to reporters about the death of a man in police custody that he was investigating, and making an unsupported allegation against him. It looked like an unwarranted attempt to help the police out of a tricky situation.

Patel decided that Tomlinson died naturally. But he found three litres of fluid in Tomlinson's abdominal cavity. His notes initially suggest that this was blood. He disposed of the fluid. Then he changed his notes to suggest that it wasn't blood but something else. Two subsequent postmortems, conducted by far more eminent pathologists, both concluded that Tomlinson died of internal bleeding consistent with his body hitting the pavement.

We don't yet know why Patel was chosen to conduct the first autopsy, but it is widely believed he was recommended to the coroner by the City of London police. The police have refused to comment. Why could a jury not have been allowed to decide which autopsy, and which pathologists, it trusted?

This is a moment in which the pomp and majesty of the law falls away to reveal a squalid little stitch-up. In years to come you will hear Keir Starmer's decision mentioned alongside the Widgery report, the Hutton report and the failure to prosecute the killers of Blair Peach and Jean Charles de Menezes. The Tomlinson whitewash will be seen as one of British officialdom's most notorious swindles.

The difference in this case is that, thanks to citizen journalism and the Guardian's investigation, we have unequivocal footage of what happened to the victim. We also know that the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which made its own assessment of the evidence, found that the case was strong enough to warrant prosecuting PC Harwood for manslaughter. This time the Crown Prosecution Service cannot hide behind police lies about what happened. We know what happened: we've seen it. This makes the stitch-up even more infuriating and obscene.

So what can be done? Ian Tomlinson's family doesn't have the money to mount a private prosecution. But could we not raise it for them? I would welcome some advice about how much would be needed and how it could best be found. But right now our duty as citizens is to raise Cain: to show that we will not accept such blatant inequality before the law. If not now, when?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-ruling-fight-whitewash

http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/

[luke]

Ian Tomlinson death: police officer faces disciplinary hearing
Met commissioner tells MPs proceedings will be brought for gross misconduct over newspaper seller's death at G20 protest

The police officer caught on video striking newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson during last year's G20 protests in London faces disciplinary proceeding, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, told MPs today.

Tomlinson later died. The announcement comes less than a week after the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would not press charges against PC Simon Harwood, a member of Scotland Yard's territorial support group, a decision that sparked anger from Tomlinson's family and supporters.

Stephenson said the officer has been told he will face a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct after the force received an independent report into the incident. He told a meeting of the Commons home affairs committee that he was "disturbed" by the footage of Mr Tomlinson being hit with a baton and pushed to the ground.

"I can confirm that the officer has been notified that a decision has been made to bring disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct," said Stephenson, adding: "It is right we move swiftly and it is also right that there is full public disclosure at the inquest."

But it would be "entirely inappropriate" to comment on the CPS decision, announced on Thursday, not to prosecute, the commissioner said. The incident had "cast a shadow" on the professionalism of the "overwhelming" number of officers and staff involved in policing G20.

Stephenson said: "I do fully understand the Tomlinson family and public sense of anger, having seen the video of the incident prior to the death of Ian Tomlinson.

"I do understand the level of outrage that this did not lead to a criminal prosecution, I can sense it and I can feel it."

Tomlinson died after the G20 demonstrations on 1 April 2009, in central London. The official account, that he died from a heart attack, was challenged when the Guardian obtained video footage showing a riot officer striking the 47-year-old with a baton and pushing him to the ground shortly before he collapsed and died.

But after a 15-month investigation, Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said last week there was "no realistic prospect" of a conviction owing ti a conflict between postmortems carried out after the death.

The Commons committee is to write to the home secretary, Theresa May, over the Starmer's failure to prosecute. Yesterday, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, supported the CPS decision, but sympathised with the anger that the decision had provoked.

"No one who has seen the pictures of Mr Tomlinson's treatment that day could fail to be disturbed by them," he said, but the facts "were rightly and thoroughly investigated".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/27/ian-tomlinson-death-paul-stephenson

[faceless]

[luke]

Thousands may sue over police kettling at G20 protests
High court rules way in which police kettled up to 5,000 demonstrators at G20 protests in April 2009 was illegal

Thousands of people found by the high court to have been illegally detained for hours by police at a central London protest may sue Scotland Yard for false imprisonment.

The high court has ruled that the Metropolitan police had broken the law in the way it kettled up to 5,000 demonstrators at the G20 protests in April 2009.

The judges heard police used the tactic of mass detention against protesters that they accepted were peaceful, with officers meting out punches to the face, slaps and shield strikes as they tried to move a demonstration against climate change.

Judges found that the force used by police was "unjustified", criticised "imprecise" instructions given by senior officers about releasing innocent people, and said the mass detentions for five hours were an unlawful deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the European convention on human rights.

The case was brought by Josh Moos and Hannah McClure, who were among the crowd held by police.

The judgment does not strike down the police tactic of kettling, or mass detention, but it will be seen as a rebuff to the Met and places police chiefs on notice that the courts will intervene in favour of the rights of protesters over claims that draconian tactics are necessary to prevent violence. The Met announced it would appeal against the judgment.

The solicitor who brought the case, John Halford, said the ruling opened the police up to thousands of lawsuits seeking damages for the unlawful behaviour. He said: "Everyone in the kettle has a claim for false imprisonment and damages as they were detained against their will."

The case concerned the G20 protests in London on 1 April 2009, during which Ian Tomlinson, a bystander, died after being struck by an officer. There were several demonstrations in the area that day, but the court case deals with a Climate Camp protest in Bishopsgate. Police said they put in a containment of the camp, fearing people from a sometimes violent protest outside the Royal Exchange may join it.

In their judgment Sir Anthony May, president of the Queens Bench Division, and Mr Justice Sweeney said police had failed to meet the conditions for the mass detention of protesters to be lawful: "To be justified in law as being the lawful exercise of the common law power to take reasonable steps to prevent a breach of the peace and as not constituting an unlawful deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the convention, the police had reasonably to apprehend an imminent breach of the peace …"

But this was not the case, the judges found, citing the fact the two protests were relatively far apart. Those who left the Royal Exchange took two hours to reach the edge of the Climate Camp protest. The judges said the risk of violence was not imminent, and that was the threshold of danger to public order needed to justify the tactic of kettling. "There was such a risk, but it was at that stage only a risk; and it was not, in our judgment, a risk of imminent breaches of the peace sufficient to justify full containment at the Climate Camp."

For the Met, policing protests has seen them criticised on several fronts, as too heavy handed at G20,and then underprepared at last year's student protests.

The high court judgment found use of force at G20 was excessive, and the rights of innocent protesters were infringed: "It is evident that there were instances of unduly inflexible release [from the containment] and instances of unnecessary and, we think, unjustified force in the pushing operation."

The judges also criticised instructions a police chief said he gave to officers to release the innocent from the detention: "They were very general and imprecise and may not have been fully conveyed to individual officers, some of whom appear not to have been trained for crowd control operations of this kind."

The judges found a police decision to disperse the crowd to avoid it remaining overnight was lawful.

The Met said: "We believe that this issue is so important for the police's ability to prevent disorder within protest that we will be appealing. The MPS believes that the Bishopsgate containment prevented further scenes of violence and criminal damage occurring on 1 April 2009."

Dee Doocey, a Liberal Democrat member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said: "We must have authoritative and crystal clear guidance on who can trigger the use of kettling … the Met must urgently address the insufficient training that police officers receive in the use of shields."

Jenny Jones, a Green party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said: "They have used kettling illegally, and sometimes violently, on peaceful demonstrations since May 2001. Kettling takes away the human rights and civil liberties of innocent, legal protesters."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/14/sue-police-kettling-g20-protests

[luke]

oops posted twice

[faceless]

nice one, but it wasn't a "demonstration against climate change" - it was a demonstration against the pollution and systems which are causing the manmade part of it. Lines like that are gold dust to maniacs...

[faceless]

G20 protests: Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed by PC, inquest rules
Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a Scotland Yard officer at the G20 protests, an inquest jury ruled today.
03 May 2011
telegraph.co.uk

Criminal proceedings could reopen against Pc Simon Harwood after jurors ruled he acted illegally, recklessly and dangerously in shoving Mr Tomlinson to the ground. Pc Harwood used ''excessive and unreasonable'' force in hitting Mr Tomlinson with a baton, the jury said. Mr Tomlinson posed no threat, they added. Evidence from Pc Harwood and pathologist Dr Freddy Patel was discredited as part of the verdict which will prompt reviews by both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police.

Mr Tomlinson, a homeless 47-year-old newspaper seller, collapsed and died on the fringes of the demonstrations in central London on April 1 2009. The death became an international controversy after New York businessman Christopher La Jaunie handed footage he had taken of the police confrontation to the Guardian newspaper. Prosecutors said last year that a decision not to pursue charges against Pc Harwood could be reviewed in the light of the inquest's findings.

Dr Patel's claim that Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack was discredited by the jury in favour of a string of experts who said he died of internal bleeding. Pc Harwood was accused by the victim's family of telling lies in a bid to get off the hook. Mr Tomlinson had been turned away from a line of officers with his hands in his pockets when Pc Harwood hit out.

CCTV images, police helicopter footage and hand-held video recordings show Mr Tomlinson cutting a lonely figure as he staggered away from a police cordon after being hit with a baton. Footage shows Mr Tomlinson gesturing to police and appearing angry after being sent tumbling to the ground. He eventually collapsed flat out and muttered ''they got me, the fuckers got me'' before dying minutes later.

Scotland Yard colleagues were shocked by Pc Harwood's actions. Pc Kerry Smith said: ''He (Mr Tomlinson) sat up and looked towards us and he said 'I just wanted to go home'.'' Appearing for three days at the hearing in Fleet Street, central London, Pc Harwood apologised to family members for ''any way'' he may be responsible for the death.

But relatives' lawyer Matthew Ryder QC said he told ''half truths'' and ''deliberately painted a false picture of Mr Tomlinson''. The barrister added: ''I am going to suggest to you that you are not here to help Mr Tomlinson's family but to help yourself.''

Mr Tomlinson, who was born in Matlock, Derbyshire, was an alcoholic with a series of medical complaints who had slept rough for 20 years. Dr Patel initially found the death was consistent with natural causes because the newspaper seller had coronary artery disease and could have died at any time.

But another two pathologists, Dr Nat Cary and Dr Kenneth Shorrock, later carried out their own post-mortem examinations and came to a different conclusion. Dr Cary suggested that Mr Tomlinson could have been pushed so he fell with his right arm trapped under his body, hitting his liver and causing it to bleed internally.

Widow Julia said the death devastated her family, adding: ''I remember feeling he was the best thing that ever happened to me.''

-------------------

Great news - that copper needs to pay for his crime.

[luke]

Tomlinson police officer to face manslaughter trial
PC Simon Harwood will face criminal proceedings for striking newspaper vendor with a baton during G20 protests in 2009



A police officer will face trial for manslaughter over the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests.

PC Simon Harwood, 43, a Metropolitan police officer, will face a criminal prosecution for striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him to the ground in April 2009.

Tomlinson, 47, had been trying to make his way home from work through demonstrations near the Bank of England when he was pushed from behind. He collapsed and died three minutes later.

Three weeks ago an inquest jury decided Tomlinson was "unlawfully killed".

The director of public prosections, Keir Starmer, had announced in July last year that he did not believe there was sufficient evidence for a prosecution due to complications relating to medical evidence.

However, he said in a statement on Tuesday that new information had emerged during the inquest and, while difficulties remained, he now believed there was sufficient evidence to bring criminal proceedings.

"Taking the evidence as it now stands, we have concluded that, even with those remaining difficulties, there is now sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of successfully prosecuting PC Simon Harwood for the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson," he said. "That being the case, it is clearly in the public interest that criminal proceedings be brought.

"Accordingly, a summons charging PC Harwood with the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson has been obtained from the City of Westminster magistrates court. He will appear before that court on 20 June 2011."

The DPP said the inquest had allowed "a degree of clarity" to emerge and had resolved some complications relating to medical evidence.

The judge presiding over the inquest as assistant deputy coroner had reminded jurors repeatedly that the five-week hearing was not a criminal trial or designed to apportion blame for Tomlinson's death.

Judge Peter Thornton QC said on the opening day of proceedings: "An inquest is very different from cases in other courts. Nobody is on trial. No organisation is on trial. You, as the jury, will not decide any question of criminal or civil liability. That is why you are a jury of 11, for example, a historically different number to a jury in criminal cases."

Jurors were told there were two possible explanations for Tomlinson's death. The first pathologist to examine his body, Dr Freddy Patel, concluded that he died of coronary artery disease.

However, three other forensic pathologists disagreed, concluding that he died of internal bleeding.

On 3 May, the inquest jury returned a verdict of "unlawful killing", stating that Tomlinson died as a result of internal bleeding in the abdomen. The Crown Prosecution Service immediately said it would review its earlier decision not to bring criminal proceedings against Harwood.

In a detailed statement setting out the reversal of his earlier decision, Starmer said: "The difficulty facing any prosecution in relation to the death of Mr Tomlinson lies in the conflicting medical evidence about the cause of death. That difficulty remains.

"A criminal trial is different to an inquest and it is my duty to ensure that a prosecution is only brought where there is evidence available to the prosecution that provides a realistic prospect of a jury being able to satisfy themselves beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. For that reason very careful consideration is required where there is conflicting medical evidence.

"However, matters have moved on in two ways since the original decision was taken in this case. First, new medical evidence was presented at the inquest. Second, the various accounts and opinions given by the medical experts, including Dr Patel, were tested in extensive questioning at the inquest; this has changed the basis upon which the case falls to be considered."

The DPP indicated that the inquest process had itself been important. "But for the inquest, the significant conflicts in the evidence that had previously existed could not have been addressed; and the inquest process, which is less confined than a criminal trial, has allowed a degree of clarity to emerge."

He added: "We have considered the new evidence adduced at the inquest and the final positions adopted by the medical experts very carefully indeed.

"Having done so, we are satisfied that the position in relation to the medical evidence about the cause of death has clearly changed. The difficulties that would now confront any prosecution have changed in nature and scale from last year when a decision was taken not to prosecute, although it is clear that real difficulties remain."

Starmer reminded the media that care should be taken to avoid prejudicing criminal proceedings against Harwood. "He has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice his trial."

Ian Tomlinson's son Paul King said in a statement on behalf of the family: "We welcome today's decision to bring a charge of manslaughter against the officer. We believe this is the right decision. What we have always wanted is to achieve justice for Ian and to show that police officers are not above the law."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/24/tomlinson-police-officer-manslaughter-trial

[faceless]

fantastic news - it's just sickening that it took them so long to do anything. If it wasn't for people filming the bastard would have got away with it.

[Brown Sauce]

[faceless]

very good point - I wonder how many of them are still evading justice for their crimes? Thousands probably.

[luke]

Aggression during G20 rally ‘perpetrated by police,’ judge rules

A Toronto judge has ruled that “adrenalized” police officers acted as aggressors at a peaceful political rally that led to dozens of arrests during last year’s G20 summit.

“The only organized or collective physical aggression at that location that evening was perpetrated by police each time they advanced on demonstrators,” Justice Melvyn Green ruled on Thursday. He was referring to a demonstration at Queen St. and Spadina Ave. on Saturday, June 26, 2010.

Green stated police criminalized political demonstration, which is “vital” to maintain a “viable democracy.”

Green’s stern words echo widespread criticism of police during the G20, in which more than 1,100 people were detained in the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. A Toronto Star/Angus Reid Public Opinion poll conducted on the one-year anniversary of the G20 found a majority of Torontonians (54 per cent) now believe police response to demonstrations during the summit were unjustified.

“The zealous exercise of police arrest powers in the context of political demonstrations risks distorting the necessary if delicate balance between law enforcement concerns for public safety and order, on the one hand, and individual rights and freedoms, on the other,” Green wrote in a 29-page judgment.

The ruling was in response to charges against one protester, Michael Puddy.

The London, Ont. bricklayer was on his way to a concert downtown when he joined the front line of the late-night Saturday rally. Puddy was wearing a “Police Bastard” T-shirt named after a punk band, when he was pushed to the ground and cuffed.

Puddy was shuffled from officer to officer and eventually transported to the temporary Prisoner Processing Unit on Eastern Ave. He spent two days behind bars and was forced to sleep on a concrete floor and use a toilet without a door before he was released on $25,000 bail.

Though four officers testified at his trial, none could say why he was detained — or who made the initial arrest.

Green found that Puddy was arrested “completely without justification,” strip-searched and detained for two further days for “a show cause hearing.”

Green acknowledged there were “episodes of wanton vandalism and occasional violent clashes between protestors and the police” that weekend, including rioters clad in black clothing.

However, the most egregious testimony of civilian misconduct at Queen St. and Spadina Ave. the night Puddy was arrested was a “single bottle being thrown,” Green wrote.

Green found that protesters were “harvested” by the police “punch out” tactic. Police would intermittently charge the crowd of about 300 people to force them west on Queen St. — and those who didn’t move back fast enough were seized, thrown to the ground and bound with plastic flex cuffs.

The following day, some 300 protesters and bystanders were boxed in at the same intersection when police used the controversial crowd control technique known as kettling. Toronto police have promised never to use that tactic again after widespread criticism.

Sgt. Ash Awad testified he “assumed” Puddy had been arrested for breaching the peace when he found him bound at his wrists on Queen St. W. Awad found that Puddy was carrying a 15-centimetre knife in a pouch on his belt.

Puddy was charged with obstructing police, concealing a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon. The first two charges were dismissed during his trial in May. Green found Puddy not guilty of the final charge on Thursday.

“It’s vindication,” Puddy told the Toronto Star. “It shows that I never should have been arrested in the first place.”

Puddy said he went to the political protest — his first — to “see how democracy works.” He said he always carried the folding knife on his belt because it’s a useful tool on construction sites.

Police found that the blade could pop out with the flick of the wrist, possibly due to wear and tear, which makes it a prohibited weapon. However, Green accepted Puddy’s defence that he did not know the blade could be flicked open because it’s made and sold to open manually.

Green also ruled that since he was arrested without cause, the subsequent search that uncovered the knife was invalid.

Now 32, Puddy said he’s still disgusted at the behaviour of police that day in June.

“It seems like they may have singled me out of the crowd because of the way I was dressed. I remember being tackled from both sides,” Puddy said. “It was disgusting. I never would have expected something like this to happen in Canada.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1038347--aggression-during-g20-rally-perpetrated-by-police-judge-rules

[faceless]

[faceless]

No justice, no peace. Fuck this cop and anyone who defends him.