Possible Conspiracies Surrounding the G20 Summit Protests

Veni Vedi Vici

Hi All,

I tried posting a thread discussing the G20 Summit in relation to conspiracy theory however it was moved to the politics forum.

I'm hoping that if I clearly identify what may be eligable conspiracy theory questions surrounding the G20 Summits that the discussion will be permitted:

Conspiracy Topic 1: Were the protestors unfairly provoked or was violence incited by the riot police / agents posing as aggressive extremists so taht future civil liberties may be impaired and for the justification of a less lenient implementation of control over future protests?

Conspiracy Topic 2: Did the protestor Ian Tomlinson die of what could be deemed as innocent causes or was his death the result of a head injury at the hands of the riot police and a lack of medical attention as several eye witnesses have accounted for?

Conspiracy Topic 3: Are the media deliberatly portraying what is predominatly a passive and dissatisfied public as extremist anarchists, violent hooligans, drunks and pot heads?

Conspiracy Topic 4: Does the G20 Summit represent an entity that many would conspiracy theorists would consider to be an engine for globalization in a negative sense? (e.g. New World Order)

Conspiracy Topic 5: If its likley that similar riots were to occur in Ireland before the year is out would it in turn be likley that the law enforcers might provoke passive protestors into confrontation?

I apreciate that some of the above items are radical, even some sensationalized and some that the moderators might not deem applicable to the forum. We can determine this together. Though I'm still not decided on the answers for each of the topics I will post links to various articles that have prompted the corresponding questions.

Veni Vedi Vici

Here's one article I've come across from a youtube member. I'm providing it as food for thought on the discussion table rather than as credible proof. I'm already aware that it is not the latter.

We were all peaceful for hours and hours but then, all of a sudden, riot police turn in mass.
So we carried on being peaceful but then the riot police started beating people with batons and with their sheilds. Even whilst people were getting hit we were shouting "This is a protest, This is not a riot" and "We are peaceful protesters, why are you hitting us?!".

We were intensionally provoked to use Violence (if you can even call it that) so we could try to break the police line, all we wanted to do was go home. Most of us had ran out of water & had no food all day.

While it had calmed down for a while (before they started letting us go) me and a few others were asking for the law that states that the police are allowed to block people in and not allowing them to food, water, toilets & medical treatment, they didnt and couldnt answer, what they did was illegal.
I ask a few riot police "We are doing this for the public because we are angry about they way the public are treated in order to benefit the rich while the poor loose their jobs and such, even though you are police, you are still the public, so we are doing this for you too, so why do you beat those inocent people to the floor?" they didnt have a clue what to say.
If you get the chance in future riots, you should ask them this question and see what they.

My deepest condolences go out to the family of Ian Tomlinson who sadly past away on the day of the protest. The police state that we died of natural causes, but there is clear evidence from witnesses and photos that he was struck to the ground, hitting his head on the floor, and didnt get any medical attention. We demade answers to his familys and our questions about his death and why he did not get medical attention and why police struck him. There will be many protests in the future for him.

Dont believe the news, it is all lies. You can either believe what you are told, or believe what you see and research for yourself with the facts the are shown.

Peace and solidarity to all my fellow protesters and anarchists who went, we will not give up, we will win!

SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQoBkOjUZhQ

humanji

Well, here's my take on it:

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Conspiracy Topic 1: Were the protestors unfairly provoked or was violence incited by the riot police / agents posing as aggressive extremists so taht future civil liberties may be impaired and for the justification of a less lenient implementation of control over future protests?

I'd say there was enough tension in the air and bad elements on both sides to ensure that there'd be violence. Some protesters will want to be seen being attacked by the cops to look like martyrs, and some cops want to beat the shìt out of some protesters to keep the rest in line (and work off some steam).

I can't say it's a conspiracy, because it's the exact same thing that happens at every one of these summits.

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Conspiracy Topic 2: Did the protestor Ian Tomlinson die of what could be deemed as innocent causes or was his death the result of a head injury at the hands of the riot police and a lack of medical attention as several eye witnesses have accounted for?

I can't really say, to be honest. I hope the cop who attacked him gets put away, but is he responsible for the death? I don't know. It seems like a hell of a coincidence if he just happened to have a heart attack on the same day, but you never know. I'll wait to hear what the autopsy says.

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Conspiracy Topic 3: Are the media deliberatly portraying what is predominatly a passive and dissatisfied public as extremist anarchists, violent hooligans, drunks and pot heads?

Definitely all of these, and each outlet is doing it for different reasons. Papers like the Guardian want to portray the protesters as heroes battling a corrupt regime, while more conservative papers want to portray them as mindless thugs. But the majority just want the best pictures that will sell, it doesn't matter who the photos are of, just as long as they're controversial.

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Conspiracy Topic 4: Does the G20 Summit represent an entity that many would conspiracy theorists would consider to be an engine for globalization in a negative sense? (e.g. New World Order)

Depends if you believe in that sort of thing.

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Conspiracy Topic 5: If its likely that similar riots were to occur in Ireland before the year is out would it in turn be likely that the law enforcers might provoke passive protesters into confrontation?

I'd say in Ireland it'd be the protesters who make the first violent move. But again, it'd just be bad elements out to cause trouble, not to actually protest.

Veni Vedi Vici

humanji wrote: »

Some protesters will want to be seen being attacked by the cops to look like martyrs, and some cops want to beat the shìt out of some protesters to keep the rest in line (and work off some steam).

I definatley agree with this statement. I think the following excerpt supports your opinion:

“As for the violent clashes that led to cracked heads and limbs, how much was inevitable and how much avoidable?”. Campbell concedes that “some demonstrators were bent on aggro” but adds: “so were some of the officers.” He also criticises the conditions inside the kettle and suggests that it will make people think twice before embarking on a demonstration in future. Thus Campbell suggests the “clashes” were avoidable, but does not indicate that the kettles actually led to the “clashes” - though, to give credit where it is due, his is the only piece in the press which dares to suggest that the police were themselves violent.
SOURCE: http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/2009/04/correcting-the-media-narrative-of-the-g20-protests-on-april-1-2009/

The following suggests a less balanced approach:

Subsequently, at least 10 protesters sitting down in the street close to the Bank of England were left with bloody head wounds after being charged by officers with batons at around 4.30pm. One woman, said to be an Italian student, was carried off unconscious.

...

After the charge against the sit-down protest at students, there were complaints that officers had been heavy handed. “When people surrounded RBS, I could understand police tactics,” said Jack Bright, 19. “We were sat down, trying to have a peaceful protest, but they started whacking us.”
With his head wounds bandaged up by an ITN crew, Finn O’Sullivan, 21, said: “There was a girl in front of me who got hit. Then a bloke got hit and fell to the floor. I was next in line and just remember shields coming down on us. The police were stamping and kicking. I asked them to let me through the line for medical treatment but they said no.”
SOURCE: http://statismwatch.ca/2009/04/01/g20-protests-riot-police-clash-with-demonstrators/

I also agree that the death of Ian Tomlinson is an awkward coincidence if nothing else at all. Then again UTV suggests otherwise:

The submission to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) includes a collection of testimonies from witnesses, along with the footage, shot at about 7.20pm last Wednesday, which shows *Tomlinson at Royal Exchange *Passage. The film reveals that as he walks, with his hands in his pockets, he does not speak to the police or offer any resistance.
A phalanx of officers, some with dogs and some in riot gear, are close behind him and try to urge him forward.
A Metropolitan police officer appears to strike him with a baton, hitting him from behind on his upper thigh.
Moments later, the same policeman rushes forward and, using both hands, pushes Tomlinson in the back and sends him flying to the ground, where he *remonstrates with police who stand back, leaving bystanders to help him to his feet.
SOURCE: http://www.u.tv/News/Ian-Tomlinson-death-Guardian-video-reveals-police-attack-on-man-who-died-at-G20-protest/70d721e2-9c7a-4c7b-9a38-967929576d1c

When you reference 'conservative papers' do you have any specific example in my mind?

I'm not too sure about Ireland rioting at all. We seem far too laid back as a nation. I guess the government will have to keep on pushing for us to discover our treshold as a nation.

6th

You've made a very good OP on it but I'd be interested in hearing your take on it? Surely you're leaning one way or the other?

Veni Vedi Vici

6th wrote: »

Surely you're leaning one way or the other?

Everything has its sway whether negligable or significant.

I guess a personal objective of the post (aside from discussion) was to learn more about each topic and then make a more informed decision.

I will however attempt to answer since we're both of the opinion that each of us all tend to lean towards certain ends of a supposition:

C Topic 1: I agree with the balanced answer as provided by humanji that suggests both parties are antagonistic in some ways. Furthermore I think the negative media attention on protestors will perhaps justify more stringent counter-measures or offensives in the future. This is just my opinion.

C Topic 2: As far as I know the autopsy has not yet been released. I will base my decision on this.

I'm leaning towards the idea that he died at the hands of police brutality and negligence based on the footage shown in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ

C Topic 3: So far I have only come across negative portrayals of the protestors mostly to the effect of anarchy and roudiness. This of course is limited to what I have encountered and does not in any way reflect what the actual answer is. I'm hoping humanji will get back to back to me on the question I asked him in relation to the conservative papers.

C Topic 4: I am open to this notion. I haven't come across enough substantiated evidence or correlation to actually make a definitive decision as of yet. The romantic altruist inside of me leans towards 'yes'. The cold and rigorous intellect inside of me leans towards 'no'.

C Topic 5: I'd lean towards 'no' though it remains to be seen. Gardai just seem to be too locally imbedded in our towns and cities to be so flippant in terms of brutality. Again this is based on opinion.

Veni Vedi Vici

I'm intersted in what other members make of video. Is it exemplary of a riot squad inciting violence?

Diogenes

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Conspiracy Topic 2: Did the protestor Ian Tomlinson

He wasn't a protestor he had a stall selling the evening standard and was caught up in the crowd.

Veni Vedi Vici

Diogenes wrote: »

He wasn't a protestor he had a stall selling the evening standard and was caught up in the crowd.

Right you are. OP ammended.

Do you have an opinion on the actual topics presented (not required, just desired)?

meglome

Saw that video on the evil mainstream media earlier and it looks very bad for the cop involved. But you never know these things are not always cut and dry but it really does look nasty.

Some of the protesters have a point but when many of them arrive with weapons and masks if spoils this message.

Veni Vedi Vici

meglome wrote: »

Some of the protesters have a point but when many of them arrive with weapons and masks if spoils this message.

I know. It raises the question why they feel its the only means they have of protesting or accomplishing they're goals. I believe they'd be more succesful if they employed a few experts in the field of marketing to convey their message.

Interestingly enough I stumbled across a post online saying anti-NWO banners were amongst the crowds though I've yet to come across any evidence supporting this.

Diogenes

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Right you are. OP ammended.

Do you have an opinion on the actual topics presented (not required, just desired)?

I was in Genoa during the G8 summit I was pretty close to the murder of the poor kid Carlo Guiliani about less than a km away.

Do you really think the police intentially murderer a 47 evening standard paper seller who was walking away from police lines?

Could you please explain what possible positive reaction any ascpect of the police could take from this?

This was a regretable tragedy you need to explain why it isn't.

Veni Vedi Vici

Diogenes wrote: »

I was in Genoa during the G8 summit I was pretty close to the murder of the poor kid Carlo Guiliani about less than a km away.

Do you really think the police intentially murderer a 47 evening standard paper seller who was walking away from police lines?

Could you please explain what possible positive reaction any ascpect of the police could take from this?

This was a regretable tragedy you need to explain why it isn't.

Have I missed something here? Your post seems to be on the offensive and completley out of context Diogenes. Please point out the following by way of quotation:

• Where did I suggest his murder was deliberate?
• Where did I suggest the tradgedy was not regretable?

I'm really struggling to see the basis of your inquiry. Have you read the thread in full? Furthermore your use of language suggests that you're attempting to attack the poster rather than the post.

bonkey

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Have I missed something here? Your post seems to be on the offensive and completley out of context Diogenes. Please point out the following by way of quotation:

• Where did I suggest his murder was deliberate?
• Where did I suggest the tradgedy was not regretable?

I'm really struggling to see the basis of your inquiry. Have you read the thread in full? Furthermore your use of language suggests that you're attempting to attack the poster rather than the post.

Whatever about the specific individual, your questions were posed from the perspective that you - at the very least - don't rule out the possibility of provocation by police or indeed the deliberate engineering of riots which led to deaths.

You started this thread. You asked these questions.

Regardless of the positions you later staked out, I find that there are two options here:

1) You don't believe there is any possibility of a conspiracy, and are attempting to find out if others claim that there is for ulterior motives that you've chosen to keep hidden and that I'm not going to even guess at.

2) You do believe that there is a possibility of the conspiracies that you mentioned, which includes deliberate engineering of riots, leading to deaths.

I find option 1 distasteful, so until I have evidence to the contrary, I would tend to side with option 2 - that you believe the possibility exists that each of your imagined conspiracies could be real. Your own response (post 6) supports this. You lean towards or away from possibilities...you make it clear that you haven't reached a conclusion.

Given that these riots and deaths are (unfortunately) nothing new at G20 summits, a further direct implication of the second option is that you don't rule out the possibility that such riots have been engineered at previous events. You certainly didn't go to any length to suggest that there is a material difference between the riots this time round and those which occurred at previous events, which involved similar parties on both sides and had similar reporting.

This, from what I can see, leads directly to Diogenes questions.

You are entertaining the possibility of engineered rioting, leading to death. You are entertaining the possibility of deliberate, excessive police brutality, up to and including death.

Diogenes has supplied an example of someone ending up dead, in the context of the events that you have supplied, and asked you to explain how it fits into one or more possibilities that you refuse to rule out.

I don't find that an objectionable question at all. You are asking about the possibility of incredibly distasteful conspiracies being reality. You have admitted that you don't rule out the possibility of them being real. You are being asked to explain how a specific event fits with those distasteful possibilities that you refuse to rule out.

There was no attacking of the poster by Diogenes. He asked you for an explanation of an event. You may find it distasteful that you are being asked to discuss the details of a specific event, but Diogenes isn't the one who entertains the possibility of the police killing people in engineered riots to further some ill-defined goal. You did that, and made it clear that you haven't ruled it out.

Diogenes didn't start this thread. All he's asking you to do is match events that occurred to possibilities that you are entertaining.

Veni Vedi Vici

Your way off the mark here bonkey and I think your missing the problem at hand. Your lengthy post seems determined to say the least though I think we can resolve this by following a simpler methodology with less key strokes.

1) Diogenes implied that the following:

I suggested his murder was deliberate.
I suggested the tradgedy was not regretable.

2) I asked Diogenes to by way of quotation to provide evidence of the suggestions in question.

That's where we're at right now bonkey. Diogenes made an implication. I fail to see it. I asked for him to corroborate it so I can better respond to the guy. Simple as. If you feel you want to substantiate Diogenes claim then work away and outlay the requested evidence by way of quotation though I would eventually like see him support his own implications.

In your posts (as a poster, not a mod) you like to challenge the reasoning of various members , particulary CT members (and rightly so). You don't seem to be doing such a good job of it here in challenging Diogenes as a skeptic. Diogenes made a claim. I asked him back it up. We move foward after this. Theres little need for you to hold his hand.

Secondly I don't know if your talking as a mod or a poster though I'm responding to you as a poster so please forewarn me if my trajectory is leading towards infraction / ban or whatever it is that may apply in this case (I'm not beig snide here - I genuinly don't want infraction / ban and will curb my posts if instructed to).

So much for the 'less key stokes' idea then... :pac:

Diogenes

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Your way off the mark here bonkey and I think your missing the problem at hand. Your lengthy post seems determined to say the least though I think we can resolve this by following a simpler methodology with less key strokes.

No he's pretty much on the money.

1) Diogenes implied that the following:

I suggested his murder was deliberate.

Ahem

Your OP wrote:

Were the protestors unfairly provoked or was violence incited by the riot police / agents posing as aggressive extremists so taht future civil liberties may be impaired and for the justification of a less lenient implementation of control over future protests?

You suggested that it was possible in your mind that the police went out there to either engineer situations were they would be justified to use force, or indeed through the use of agent provocateurs to start trouble. You're the one who started this thread, and in your third sentence you come out, and say you are entertaining the possibility that the police went out there with the intention of either provoking or indeed manufacturing a situation that would justify the use of force.

I suggested the tradgedy was not regretable.

I did no such thing. What I was trying to say is that I cannot imagine that the police officer who struck Tomlinson, or the officer who pushed him, was actively attacking him with the intention of applying deadly force. Now whether it was excessive force, that's a matter for the courts to decide. But I don't think the police officer went out that day with the intention to kill someone. I think everyone regrets the situation.

What I do think is that it's fairly reprehensible to start imagining lurid conspiracy theories about the man's death before he's even buried.

2) I asked Diogenes to by way of quotation to provide evidence of the suggestions in question.

I just did.

In your posts (as a poster, not a mod) you like to challenge the reasoning of various members , particulary CT members (and rightly so). You don't seem to be doing such a good job of it here in challenging Diogenes as a skeptic. Diogenes made a claim. I asked him back it up. We move foward after this. Theres little need for you to hold his hand.

I don't need him to hold my hand.

Secondly I don't know if your talking as a mod or a poster though I'm responding to you as a poster so please forewarn me if my trajectory is leading towards infraction / ban or whatever it is that may apply in this case (I'm not beig snide here - I genuinly don't want infraction / ban and will curb my posts if instructed to).

So much for the 'less key stokes' idea then... :pac:

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::D:D:D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Locamon

All very interesting but is the only real conspiracy here the one by the police to cover up their involvement in the events that led up to this unfortunate man's collapse. They continued to do this until video evidence was produced to prove otherwise -forcing the independent investigations board to take over the investigation from the police.
As for the cop who attacked Mr. Tomlinson a classic case of the police deciding everyone in that area was up to no good and therefore fair game. To the police he looks like a protestor engaging in some form of passive resistance when he was most likely terrified and confused by not being able to get out of the area or at worst genuinely put out because he was being treated in such a way by the police on his way home.
The question is -was this how protestors were to be treated and if so what plan was put in place to identify innocent people caught up in the area, if there was none and this was deemed acceptable behaviour by the police then the responsibility is with the men at the top. If not I think this officer will be shown the door at the very least.
Very depressing watching what is a very tragic video.

bonkey

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

In your posts (as a poster, not a mod) you like to challenge the reasoning of various members , particulary CT members (and rightly so). You don't seem to be doing such a good job of it here in challenging Diogenes as a skeptic.

If it is right to challenge the reasoning of various members, then you have no grounds whatsoever for complaining that someone has challenged you to provide the reasoning that underlies possibilities that you admit to entertaining.

You did, however, complain.

I'm not defending Diogenes. I'm disagreeing with your complaint, and offering my reason for it.

You have so far failed to offer reasoning as to why you are entertaining these possibilities, and you are being asked if you genuinely believe they are possible, and if so how you can explain the events within a plausible framework that is consistent with those possibilities

Diogenes made a claim. I asked him back it up. We move foward after this. Theres little need for you to hold his hand.

Just to be clear, here...

You are saying that you no longer have any issue with Diogenes post...that you no longer believe he is attempting to attack the poster?

Note - I'm not asking you to answer his questions. I'm saying that he has every right to ask them.

Secondly I don't know if your talking as a mod or a poster though I'm responding to you as a poster

I didn't see any need to make a distinction in this case.

so please forewarn me if my trajectory is leading towards infraction / ban

As a mod, I can tell you that comments along the line of posters not needing others to "hold their hand" is certainly not doing you any favours in that regard.

Veni Vedi Vici

The basis for your implications demonstates a failure to reason. Let me show you how:

You asked:

Do you really think the police intentially murderer a 47 evening standard paper seller who was walking away from police lines?

In response to this quote:

Were the protestors unfairly provoked or was violence incited by the riot police / agents posing as aggressive extremists so taht future civil liberties may be impaired and for the justification of a less lenient implementation of control over future protests?

Failure to reason:
How does this quotation warrant the question you asked. Not once did I suggest the murder was intentional. I simply suggested the violence was intentional. I'm not merely deploying semantics here. I'm conveying to you what I genuinly believe to be true: Yes, I believe the riot squads were deliberatley and unjustifiably violent. No, I do not believe the riot police deliberatley murdered the victim in question here. I'm sure their reaction was something to the effect of 'Oh, ****!' afterwards. I still fail to see how you feel you have any solid ground to imply that I believe the contrary.

__________________________________________________________

VVV:

1) Diogenes implied that the following:
...
I suggested the tradgedy was not regretable.

Diogenes:

I did no such thing.

To be fair you clearly did Diogenes:

Diogenes:

This was a regretable tragedy you need to explain why it isn't.

Failiure to reason:
You've blatantly contradicted yourself here. If we can get passed the stage of you denying a question you clearly asked then I'd like to ask you yet again to provide some reliable evidence by way of quotation that demonstrates how I implied that this poor man's death was not regrettable. I'm in no way comfortable with your accusation.

Diogenes

Failure to reason:
How does this quotation warrant the question you asked. Not once did I suggest the murder was intentional. I simply suggested the violence was intentional.

And this is essentially your problem, you don't seem to grasp that if someone goes out with the intention of committing violence, then death is a very real possibility.

Whether the death is murder or manslaughter is a matter of the courts.

But by saying that its possible the police went out to provoke or use agent provocateur's to commit violence, you're implying that this death is a direct or indirect result of those tactics.

I'm asking you to put forward some evidence to support this.

I'm not merely deploying semantics here.

You really are. You're fixated on the word "regrettable" in the phrase "regrettable tragedy".

I'm conveying to you what I genuinly believe to be true: Yes, I believe the riot squads were deliberatley and unjustifiably violent. No, I do not believe the riot police deliberatley murdered the victim in question here.

You're saying that the police went out the deliberate intention of committing violence, you're just quibbling about the amount of force used, and the intention involved.

I am asking you to provide evidence of deliberate provoked violence, and agent provocateurs.

I'm sure their reaction was something to the effect of 'Oh, ****!' afterwards. I still fail to see how you feel you have any solid ground to imply that I believe the contrary.

I don't, once again you're obsessed with the word "regrettable" in the phrase "regrettable tragedy".

To be fair you clearly did Diogenes:

No I didn't, you protest too much.

Your failure to reason: You've blatantly contradicted yourself here. If we can get passed the stage of you denying a question you clearly asked then I'd like to ask you yet again to provide some reliable evidence by way of quotation that demonstrates how I implied that this poor man's death was not regrettable. I'm in no way comfortable with your accusation.

I think you are now being obtuse. You are fixating on the "regrettable" part of the phrase "regrettable tragedy".

I think it's a given that everyone regrets that this man died. However you're saying that you entertain the possibility that police went out with the intention of committing violence or to manufacture violence.

If the police went out to pick, or indeed engineer violence, then this death wasn't an accident, it was a very possible outcome of these alleged tactics. What evidence do you have for your OP;

you wrote:

Were the protestors unfairly provoked or was violence incited by the riot police / agents posing as aggressive extremists so taht future civil liberties may be impaired and for the justification of a less lenient implementation of control over future protests?

And you've repeated this claim

you wrote:

I simply suggested the violence was intentional. I'm not merely deploying semantics here. I'm conveying to you what I genuinly believe to be true: Yes, I believe the riot squads were deliberatley and unjustifiably violent.

I'm asking you to present an argument for your claim that the police intentionally provoked a conflict, or used agent provocateurs to justify violence.

Veni Vedi Vici

bonkey wrote: »

You have so far failed to offer reasoning as to why you are entertaining these possibilities, and you are being asked if you genuinely believe they are possible, and if so how you can explain the events within a plausible framework that is consistent with those possibilities

Your keep on missing the point bonkey. Diogenes is implying that I'm entertaining possibilities of the victims death being deliberate and that I'm implying that the death was not regretable. Neither of you can capably demonstrate by way of quotation how I have done this because I haven't. Both of your arguments are complete moot tbh.

bonkey wrote: »

You are saying that you no longer have any issue with Diogenes post...that you no longer believe he is attempting to attack the poster?

If Diogenes is intent on implying that I implying that the man's death was regretable then I can't help but take it personally. Rather than attacking the integrity of the posts it attacks my own personal integrity.

Its even worse that he can't back this up.

bonkey wrote: »

I didn't see any need to make a distinction in this case.

You should (I shouldn't have to take you through this). If I were to tell you as poster that your failure to challenge Digenes reason and further perpetuation of his false implication is complete moot then all would be well. If I were to tell you this as moderator then its very likley that I'd be infracted for challenging or disrespecting the moderators final decision / instruction.

While for you there might be little need to make the distinction for me there is a great need. Please comply.

bonkey wrote: »

comments along the line of posters not needing others to "hold their hand"

Noted.

jackiebrown

I saw this video a few days ago and usually I'd have been furious but I wasn't. I've got no anger left, I'm spent. We're all supposed to be equal under god. This was an innocent man assulted viciously from behind. Imagine meglome if this was your Dad. Would you still say it wasn't cut and dried. Do you see something else other than a vicious assult on an innocent man? You say the protesters brought weapons et al. Can you show me proof of protesters having weapons? The police defo brought weapons and they killed this man, not the protesters. What the hell is cut and dried to you? If I had done that I'd have been before a judge before I could blink and remanded on a murder charge. Can you not see how rife inequality is between us and those that are susposed to lead by example?

Sofa_King Good

It would be interesting to find out exactly who are the people behind the efforts that transformed the police forces into armoured enforcer goons.

The think-tanks, universities, policy groups etc.

bonkey

Posting as mod

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Diogenes is implying that I'm entertaining possibilities of the victims death being deliberate

I would maintain that is a reasonable interpretation for someone to have made from your original post. It is certainly within reason for someone to take that stance, just as it is reasonable for you to clarify that this is not an implication you intended by suggesting his death was not innocent.

I would suggest that once you've made such a clarification, someone should accept you at your word, even if they may feel you worded yourself poorly....just as I would suggest that when Diogenes says he did not claim that you were implying the death was not regretable, you accept that this was his intention even if you feel he may have worded itself properly.

Neither of you can capably demonstrate by way of quotation how I have done this because I haven't. Both of your arguments are complete moot tbh.

My point was and is that Diogenes had every right to ask the question he asked and was not attacking a poster by asking them to expand on their beliefs by means of clarification.

I have not commented as to whether or not I agree with his reasoning, nor where I stand on the issue, nor whether I feel that his interpretation of your stance (or yours of his) is correct.

If Diogenes is intent on implying that I implying that the man's death was regretable then I can't help but take it personally.

Diogenes has stated multiple times that such an implication was not his intent. Unless you wish to call him a liar, and accept the consequences of doing so, I suggest that you do not make such suggestions again.

You should (I shouldn't have to take you through this). If I were to tell you as poster that your failure to challenge Digenes reason and further perpetuation of his false implication is complete moot then all would be well. If I were to tell you this as moderator then its very likley that I'd be infracted for challenging or disrespecting the moderators final decision / instruction.

If you felt that there was an unclarity which made you feel insecure, it would have cost you nothing to PM me and ask me in advance. Alternately, you could have reported the post to the same effect, given that you clearly had a problem with it.

You obviously didn't feel insecure enough about your position to do this. You assumed I was not posting as a mod. I haven't contradicted that. Did guessing right and not choosing to verify things beforehand really cause you so much distress that you feel the need to continue this line of discussion? If so, then may I suggest you PM me about it rather than continuing to play the victim in-thread.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

It would be interesting to find out exactly who are the people behind the efforts that transformed the police forces into armoured enforcer goons.

It's the British police, can you point out the time when they weren't a bunch of "enforcer goons?"

During the 1990's? The days of Steven Lawerence, when the met were convicted of being institutional racist?

The 80s perhaps? The days of the miners strike?

Well the 70s, then? More insitutionalised racism, corruption, wrongful convictions?

The 60s? Grosvernor Sq riots.

Do you see my point? I think it's unfair to tarnish the entire force with the behaviour of a small minority of officers, but at the same time, I don't think theres been a point at any time in my life time, where at least a portion of society hasn't considered the police as "enforcer goons", with varying degree of merit to these claims.

Sofa_King Good

This disgusting opinion piece by Janet Street-Porter in the Independent On Sunday
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/janet-street-porter/editoratlarge-tomlinson-was-no-saint-but-he-deserved-better-1667531.html

According to her

before we put the police in the dock, it might be worth considering what Mr Tomlinson was doing that night, and what state of mind he might have been in...Mr Tomlinson was an alcoholic who lived in a bail hostel around the corner from me in the City of London. He'd tried and failed to stay away from booze,..It had been a long and trying day for the police. Mr Tomlinson wound them up when he didn't get out of the way

I guess he was asking for it...

6th

She writes opinion pieces, thats her opinion and she's entitled to it. Its hardly as if she is writing on behalf of anyone of representing anyone.

Sofa_King Good

6th wrote: »

She writes opinion pieces, thats her opinion and she's entitled to it. Its hardly as if she is writing on behalf of anyone of representing anyone.

p

She is writing on behalf of her paper, a national which would influence in part portions of its readership.

Besides its quite likely she is "initiated" herself. To gain her editorial position in the BBC she would have had to be vetted by MI5 & 6.

The files, which shed light on the BBC's hitherto secret links with the Security Service, show that at one stage it was responsible for vetting 6,300 different BBC posts - almost a third of the total workforce.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522875/Revealed-how-the-BBC-used-MI5-to-vet-thousands-of-staff.html

Diogenes. Didn't you work for the BBC?;)

6th

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

p

She is writing on behalf of her paper, a national which would influence in part portions of its readership.

Besides its quite likely she is "initiated" herself. To gain her editorial position in the BBC she would have had to be vetted by MI5 & 6.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522875/Revealed-how-the-BBC-used-MI5-to-vet-thousands-of-staff.html

Diogenes. Didn't you work for the BBC?;)

SKG, from the charter:

• Respect other posters
Snide remarks and bitching will not be tolerated, nor will accusations thrown at other members of the Boards.ie community. Singling out a poster or posters, including stating things like "some posters on here" could land you in trouble.

Using a smiley doesnt mean you can say whatever you want.

gerrycollins

can I put forward a question without rocking the boat too much?

If the policeman was to be found guilty of reckless manslaughter or murder etc and was given a relatively light jail term what would the public reaction be.

My point been that many rapists, murderers and pedos are given very poor jail terms yet there is very little and also short lived public outcry.

I can see it now people protesting again becasue the policeman may get off lightly/constant talk of cover up and non stop requests for independant inquirys etc but I dont see to many giving out when eg. a pedo can pay a few thousand euro and get off scott free.

Locamon

the real question here is how did it come about that we were told this poor man died of a heart attack and the police had no contact with him prior to his collapse?
We now know he was beaten, thrown to the ground and beaten again by the police before he collapsed and died from internal bleeding.
The media is obsessed with the officer who attacked him but they should line up the guys at the top who clearly tried to cover this up.

thecommander

Locamon wrote: »

the real question here is how did it come about that we were told this poor man died of a heart attack and the police had no contact with him prior to his collapse?

They told lies. Conspiracy solved.

meglome

Locamon wrote: »

t
We now know he was beaten, thrown to the ground and beaten again by the police before he collapsed and died from internal bleeding.

He was?

I saw him being hit in the back of the legs and then pushed. And he died of a heart attack, where are you getting the internal bleeding from?

tony 2 tone

meglome wrote: »

He was?

I saw him being hit in the back of the legs and then pushed. And he died of a heart attack, where are you getting the internal bleeding from?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8004222.stm

Doesn't say what caused the internal bleeding yet.

"That examination, carried out by Dr Freddy Patel, concluded Mr Tomlinson had diseased heart and liver and a substantial amount of blood in the abdominal cavity.

"His provisional interpretation of his findings was that the cause of death was coronary artery disease," said the statement.

"A subsequent post-mortem examination was conducted by another consultant forensic pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, instructed by the IPCC and by solicitors acting for the family of the late Mr Tomlinson.

"Dr Cary's opinion is that the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage. The cause of the haemorrhage remains to be ascertained."

thecommander

meglome wrote: »

He was?

I saw him being hit in the back of the legs and then pushed. And he died of a heart attack, where are you getting the internal bleeding from?

New coroners report says that it was internal bleeding. Possibly from the fall onto stomach they say.

meglome

thecommander wrote: »

New coroners report says that it was internal bleeding. Possibly from the fall onto stomach they say.

Hmm the plot thickens.

Veni Vedi Vici

meglome wrote: »

Hmm the plot thickens.

Indeed it does. Was the death an unfortunate series of events or the result of one brutal act?

Mahatma coat

whether or not he had prior medical conditions that caused him to be less resiliant to the beating is incidental

it was directly as a consequence of being ATTACKED By the Police that this man died.

if they hadnt attacked him he wouldnt be dead, there will be much arse coverin by the cops on this, with such Sh!te as
agh well ya see it was cause he was already fragile inside. a most unfortunate sequence of circumstances, the office couldnt have known this.

the Officer still shouldnt be goin around pushin people



Ian Tomlinson was Killed directly as a result of his interaction with the police, if they hadnt beaten him then he'd still be shufflin along with a dodgey liver and heart.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

whether or not he had prior medical conditions that caused him to be less resiliant to the beating is incidental

it was directly as a consequence of being ATTACKED By the Police that this man died.

if they hadnt attacked him he wouldnt be dead, there will be much arse coverin by the cops on this, with such Sh!te as
agh well ya see it was cause he was already fragile inside. a most unfortunate sequence of circumstances, the office couldnt have known this.

the Officer still shouldnt be goin around pushin people

Ian Tomlinson was Killed directly as a result of his interaction with the police, if they hadnt beaten him then he'd still be shufflin along with a dodgey liver and heart.

I find the whole thing odd.

Firstly we have Ian Tomlinson strolling along in front of riot police with dogs as if he hasn't a care in the world. Now I'm not suggesting he's actually done anything wrong, not for a second. But I've seen riots, sometimes innocent people get caught up and injured by police or by rioters. So what I am saying is walking through a riot like that is a very bad idea and potentially quite dangerous.

I'm also saying we have to give the police the benefit of the doubt, exactly the same way we're giving Ian Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt. If they thought he was involved in the riot then they might also think he was egging on the rioters so the rap on the legs is understandable in those circumstances. Oddly Tomlinson doesn't react after he is hit in the legs which leads on to the shove. We'd need to then establish if the cop was just trying to move him along by shoving him or is he trying to push him over. Assuming what the cops motivations are doesn't prove anything.

It's interesting to note that even though cops get (sometimes very) badly assaulted every day of the week not once do I recall anyone in here ever complained about that. I don't even recall in the many threads about police powers or police states has anyone ever mentioned what a ****ty job the cops often have. I live in Dublin city centre and each and every day I see the scum they have to deal with and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Secondly the autopsies.

We have two done with quite different findings. For a layman like myself this seems odd, now someone with medical training might be able to explain this I don't know. So you get the suspicion of some arse covering by the cops but again this doesn't prove they intended any of this in the first place.

I'd also be very interested to see all of the footage (unedited) up to where we see Ian Tomlinson sitting on the ground.


And Mahatma let's not use the word beating, as there wasn't a beating. One whack of a club on the back of the legs and a push isn't a beating. If the guy hadn't keeled over and died this wouldn't even be a blip on anyone's radar.

Mahatma coat

no but the guy did keel over and die from being Beaten by the cops


And Boo Hoo for the poor little policeman with his terrible job

THEY SIGNED UP FOR IT

if they wanted nice jobs with pretty things they should have become Florists


and no there is no benefit of the doubt, the police shouldnt be Pushin people to the ground like that, show me where thats acceptable behaviour


2 Different Autopsies and te amount of muck slingin happenin about tomlinson makes me very suspect that theres a coverup in place

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

no but the guy did keel over and die from being Beaten by the cops

Well I dunno what a beating is like in Australia but one hit in the back of the legs and a push isn't as beating as far as I'm concerned. However it doesn't change the fact the poor guy is dead.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

And Boo Hoo for the poor little policeman with his terrible job

THEY SIGNED UP FOR IT

if they wanted nice jobs with pretty things they should have become Florists

Ah I see anyone who joins the police obviously wants to be assaulted, they must enjoy it or somesuch. Like the Garda in Donegal a few weeks ago when a stolen car crushed him up against a wall and killed him, he signed up for that presumably, asked for it like. For all their faults I'll take the Gardai over the scumbags I see hanging about every day.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and no there is no benefit of the doubt, the police shouldnt be Pushin people to the ground like that, show me where thats acceptable behaviour

We're giving Ian Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt. The cop pushed him to the ground, not good it has to be said, but we seem to be assuming the cop meant to do serious harm.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

2 Different Autopsies and te amount of muck slingin happenin about tomlinson makes me very suspect that theres a coverup in place

I see cuase we can always believe what the protesters say. How about they release unedited video for a change.

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

Well I dunno what as beating is like in Australia but one hit in the back of the legs and a push isn't as beating as far as I'm concerned. However it doesn't change the fact the poor guy is dead.

tell ya what, I'll come round to your house with a nightstick and we can work on a definition of beating

Ah I see anyone who joins the police obviously wants to be assaulted, they must enjoy it or somesuch. Like the Garda in Donegal a few weeks ago when a stolen car crushed him up against a wall and killed him, he signed up for that presumably, asked for it like. For all their faults I'll take the Gardai over the scumbags I see hanging about every day.

They should be aware of the risks involved with the job from the offset, firemen sign up to run into burning buildings at times they know the risks involved.

We're giving Ian Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt. The cop pushed him to the ground, not good it has to be said, but we seem to be assuming the cop meant to do serious harm.

The cop is mandated to protect the civil population, regardless of whether he was angry or worked up or frustrated, his job was to protect Mr Tomlinson, he crossed that line, we cannot tolerate abuses of position.

I see cuase we can always believe what the protesters say. How about they release unedited video for a change.

well lets wait for the police to release all the relevant videos shall we.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

tell ya what, I'll come round to your house with a nightstick and we can work on a definition of beating

Well as long as it's only going to be a rap on the back of the legs and a push then fine.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

They should be aware of the risks involved with the job from the offset, firemen sign up to run into burning buildings at times they know the risks involved.

Lot's of jobs have dangers. Having a dangerous job is one thing but being run over by a stolen car whilst out protecting others is something else.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The cop is mandated to protect the civil population, regardless of whether he was angry or worked up or frustrated, his job was to protect Mr Tomlinson, he crossed that line, we cannot tolerate abuses of position.

Imagine that's cops were people too.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well lets wait for the police to release all the relevant videos shall we.

I'd like to see all the unedited video. I only mentioned the protesters as they have released three edited videos at this stage.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

And Boo Hoo for the poor little policeman with his terrible job

THEY SIGNED UP FOR IT

if they wanted nice jobs with pretty things they should have become Florists


and no there is no benefit of the doubt, the police shouldnt be Pushin people to the ground like that, show me where thats acceptable behaviour

There absolutely should be part of it. That benefit of the doubt that you don't say exists....that's part of the job they signed up for.

They are authorised to use force. Part of that authorisation is a recognition that they are not to blame if something tragic and unforseen happens in the line of them exercising reasonable force.

The day Mr. Tomlinson died was not an ordinary day. He was not assaulted by the local bobby, as he was walking down an otherwise-normal road on an otherwise-normal day.

Yes, he was hit in the back of the legs and pushed to the ground. However, if you feel it is unreasonable to assume that such activity is generally not life-threatening, then I guess you'd also need to see every schoolyard fight as attempted murder.

Despite this, the question still should be asked as to whether or not excessive force was used. And guess what...it is being asked.

2 Different Autopsies and te amount of muck slingin happenin about tomlinson makes me very suspect that theres a coverup in place

2 different autopsies would make me of the opinion that its more likely that there isn't a coverup in place, but rather a serious attempt to find out what really happened. If the findings of the first were unquestionably cut-and-dried, there would have been no need for a second.

That the second occurred, and that its findings were released to the public, and that there is a followup inquiry proceeding are not the signs of a coverup.

Locamon

meglome wrote: »

He was?

I saw him being hit in the back of the legs and then pushed. And he died of a heart attack, where are you getting the internal bleeding from?

I think this has been answered fully by thecommander but it appears to me you are making lots of comments on this story without actually following it.

The man in question was beaten on camera, pushed violently to the ground and then hit around the head with a baton. Hardly a tap.

You seem to imply the video being discussed was released by the protestors and edited by them? It was filmed by a US banker who happened to be there and who sent it to the Guardian when he saw the police were denying involvement. The Guardian edited it to remove incidents unrelated to the beating of Mr. Tomlinson. Maybe you are referring to other videos sent in but there is no doubting the evidence of this first video.

I take your point policemen are ordinary people just like the rest of us -just as capable of carrying out a criminal act.

2 different autopsies would make me of the opinion that its more likely that there isn't a coverup in place, but rather a serious attempt to find out what really happened. If the findings of the first were unquestionably cut-and-dried, there would have been no need for a second.

I think bonkey is confusing the guilt or otherwise of this policeman with the cover up that has clearly happened. Yes there have been two autopsies but only because a coverup was exposed by some very good journalism in the Guardian. If this video had not surfaced we would not know that Mr. Tomlinson died from internal bleeding.

meglome

Locamon wrote: »

I think this has been answered fully by thecommander but it appears to me you are making lots of comments on this story without actually following it.

The man in question was beaten on camera, pushed violently to the ground and then hit around the head with a baton. Hardly a tap.

So let me see now you used a question I asked 6 posts ago to make a point about me not knowing the story. The answer to which I used to better inform myself and outline what I thought about the whole episode. But in your response you tell me how Ian Tomlinson was hit around the head on the ground, which the videos don't show at all. Perhaps you should spend your time being less hostile and use that time to read up on the story.

And I hope if I ever receive a 'beating' it will consist of one hit to the backs of the legs and a push.

Locamon wrote: »

You seem to imply the video being discussed was released by the protestors and edited by them? It was filmed by a US banker who happened to be there and who sent it to the Guardian when he saw the police were denying involvement. The Guardian edited it to remove incidents unrelated to the beating of Mr. Tomlinson. Maybe you are referring to other videos sent in but there is no doubting the evidence of this first video.

I'm not saying anything other than I'd like to see whole segments of video and not edited versions. That way no one can spin me a story by using edits.

Locamon wrote: »

I take your point policemen are ordinary people just like the rest of us -just as capable of carrying out a criminal act.

The cops have a very difficult and often dangerous job. We're more than happy that they take on all of the **** for society. You'll forgive me for giving the police the benefit of the doubt over protesters that come to these events with masks and weapons. Protesters that are very happy to badly smash up the cities the events are in. But hey maybe they really are saving us all by burning a few McDonalds.

Locamon wrote: »

I think bonkey is confusing the guilt or otherwise of this policeman with the cover up that has clearly happened. Yes there have been two autopsies but only because a coverup was exposed by some very good journalism in the Guardian. If this video had not surfaced we would not know that Mr. Tomlinson died from internal bleeding.

Cool you have inside information as to why the autopsies were different? Feel free to share.

Kernel

Good Lord, this place is getting more hostile to conspiracy theories with each passing week. Why bother lads? There are other places to discuss our interests.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

Good Lord, this place is getting more hostile to conspiracy theories with each passing week. Why bother lads? There are other places to discuss our interests.

I'm not hostile to conspiracy theorists, fantasists maybe.

Locamon

meglome wrote: »

So let me see now you used a question I asked 6 posts ago to make a point about me not knowing the story. The answer to which I used to better inform myself and outline what I thought about the whole episode. But in your response you tell me how Ian Tomlinson was hit around the head on the ground, which the videos don't show at all. Perhaps you should spend your time being less hostile and use that time to read up on the story.

And I hope if I ever receive a 'beating' it will consist of one hit to the backs of the legs and a push.

This is getting pointless all of the media have accepted, and the police, that Mr. Tomlinson was beaten on the legs, violently pushed to the ground and then hit on the head. The policeman in question will most likely be charged with manslaughter.

I'm not saying anything other than I'd like to see whole segments of video and not edited versions. That way no one can spin me a story by using edits.

The police were given the full unedited version by the guardian and have not questioned the version of events put forward by that newspaper, they reacted by questioning the officer involved under caution.

The cops have a very difficult and often dangerous job. We're more than happy that they take on all of the **** for society. You'll forgive me for giving the police the benefit of the doubt over protesters that come to these events with masks and weapons. Protesters that are very happy to badly smash up the cities the events are in. But hey maybe they really are saving us all by burning a few McDonalds.

Some protestors and some police. Policemen who cover up their identities, which is against police regulations, and beat innocent people to death. Mr. Tomlinson was not a protestor. Again I put the emphasis on 'some.' The noble profession of the majority does not excuse criminal behaviour by some.

Cool you have inside information as to why the autopsies were different? Feel free to share.

This is a conspiracy theory forum and yes here we have one. Man dies, police deny any involvement despite lots of contradictory witnesses and obstruct investigation. Good journalism turns up evidence of a conspiracy and investigation is taken away from police. Man is proven to have died from the actions of the police. Conspiracy pretty clear to me:)

6th

And that would be fine except some people let themselves down by wanting to take it further, saying things that simply arent true. He died as a result of his injuries but it cant just be a punch (thats not shocking enough) it has to be a beating.

Locamon

6th wrote: »

And that would be fine except some people let themselves down by wanting to take it further, saying things that simply arent true. He died as a result of his injuries but it cant just be a punch (thats not shocking enough) it has to be a beating.

Not sure what you mean but if someone hits me around the legs with a stick, pushes me to the ground and then hits me on the head with the same stick is that not a 'beating?'

Don't think anyone said he was punched?

For the record I don't assume every incident is the result of a conspiracy but this seems to be a pretty clear case, the beating was clearly just a beating but the attempted cover up surely merits being called a conspiracy?