Home > Alex Massie

Thursday 9 February 2012

Ian Tomlinson

Wednesday, 8th April 2009

The appalling thing - apart from his death, of course - about the death of Ian Tomlinson after he was assaulted by the Metropolitan Police during the G20 protests last week is that if it weren't for the fact that Tomlinson collapsed from a fatal heart attack moments after he was attacked by the police, there'd be very little fuss about the incident. It would just be another example of heavy-handed police thuggery and, consequently, of no news value whatsoever. (incidentally, it also shows why it is important that the public be allowed to take photographs of the police.)

The policeman who attacked Tomlinson who was, as the video footage obtained by the Guardian clearly shows, minding his own business as he walked home from work, wasn't to know that the newspaper vendor was going to die moments later of course, but that's not the issue either. Unless - as may be possible - some other evidence arises to exculpate the police, what we have here is a grotesque abuse of authority. Or, to put it another way, if an "ordinary" member of the public had assaulted Tomlinson in this fashion they would, quite rightly be facing criminal charges.

Needless to say the police are taking all this "very seriously". So seriously that Peter Smyth chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation appeared on Today to suggest that it was, alas and regrettably and all that, Tomlinson's fault for being in the vicinity of the protests in the first place:

"On a day like that, where there are some protesters who are quite clearly hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can, there is inevitably going to be some physical confrontation.
"Sometimes it isn't clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not.

"I know it's a generalisation but anybody in that part of the town at that time, the assumption would be that they are part of the protest.

"I accept that's perhaps not a clever assumption but it's a natural one."

No, it's not a clever assumption in a city such as London and nor should it be a natural one. In any case, what we have here is an unprovoked attack. Tomlinson's crime - or provocative "disrespect" towards officers - seems to have been to shamble along the road, hands in pockets, minding his own business, but, then, crucially, fail to skip sharply out the way when a posse of baton-wielding, dog-handling coppers walk up behind him. One of said policemen then whacks Tomlinson with a baton before violently pushing him to the ground from behind.

The police have difficult job, but that's why we expect them to do it well. Mistakes happen and Tomlinson's death was obviously something unforessen, but the attack on Tomlinson is suggestive, nonetheless, of a police mentality that undermines, rather than protects, public confidence in the constabulary.

Of course, the police enjoy protest days just as much as the protestors do. It's a time to go out there and crack a few heads, innit? It's all about the adrenaline and the chance to "win" one for the "good guys". Blue Team Will Prevail!

True, matters have moved on since the 1970s and there's less chance of you being beaten up in police custody or fitted up for a crime you didn't commit (one of the many ways in which Britain is a better, more decent place now than it was 30 years ago) but on days like these you might sometimes be forgiven for thinking so.

Then again, this government has encouraged the militarisation of the police - a policy which can only lead to more deaths at police hands and compromise public safety and public confidence in the police. More policemen are carrying guns and the Home Office continues to roll out the use of Tasers. It is merely a matter of time before someone is killed by these things.

These developments are unwelcome. They reinforce the notion of antagonistic policing, rather than the consensual, even contractual law enforcement that has, at least notionally, been the traditional mark of the copper on his beat. Maybe some of this is necessary, but it might also go some way towards explaining why public confidence in the police is lower than it might be. A militarised constabulary is precisely the wrong road to follow. No wonder we're rattling down that route as fast we possibly can.

Here, incidentally, is the video in question:

Filed under: Civil liberties (45 more articles) , Police (148 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (10)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Shane Glackin

April 8th, 2009 2:54pm Report this comment

Smyth's remark is all the more disingenuous when you remember that police advised people working in the area to "dress down" precisely in order to blend in...

Jimmy Kerr

April 8th, 2009 3:37pm Report this comment

The police absolutely hate protestors. This was rammed home to me recently when organising actions for Plane Stupid and coming across the shady tactics of the police then. It is drummed into them that we are all terrorists and wasters, which simply is not true

Jimmy Kerr
http://ssprenfrewshire.wordpress.com

Richard T

April 8th, 2009 3:40pm Report this comment

There's also one small difficulty with all the riot gear, the officer's name and number unfortunately gets obscured so, linked with the bar on photography, identification becomes impossible. Surely just a coincidence.

Richard T

April 8th, 2009 3:40pm Report this comment

Paul

April 8th, 2009 3:54pm Report this comment

clearly this mas was obstrucing the police and this forcefull shove couldn't have cause a heart attack. Maybe the lession if demestration shoulhd be heald in public spaces like this,

Steve.W

April 8th, 2009 6:48pm Report this comment

Jimmy Kerr you are right.

ken

April 8th, 2009 8:11pm Report this comment

What hypocrisy!! the only reason Jaqui Smith is behind an independant enquiry is that she wants to save her own miserable political neck by trying to score a few brownie points with the electorate by this tragic event. She never wanted independant enquiries before! remember Stockwell tube station??

ndm

April 8th, 2009 9:17pm Report this comment

-- clearly this man was obstructing the police and this forceful shove couldn't have caused a heart attack. Maybe the lesson is demonstrations shouln't be held in public spaces like this.

One of the problems of the use of irony in a public space is the difficulty the reader has in distinguishing between an ironic comment from an intelligent commenter and an idiotic comment from a moronic commenter.

Agent P

April 10th, 2009 11:15pm Report this comment

Seems there is some evidence now that 85 minutes earlier Mr. Tomlinson was involved with another altercation -- blocking a police riot van! If true, this would seem to contradict the notion that this man was merely "...minding his own business as he walked home from work..."

MarkM

April 15th, 2009 2:08am Report this comment

Surely the police should only use, reasonable force, when confronted with violence? The video shows no acts of violence on behalf of Mr. Tomlinson whether he was being cocky and deliberately obstructing or otherwise, there appears to be no justification for the violence visited on him shown in that video. I would like to hear what the policeman responsible has to say for himself. To think he has a conscience and is now suffering the effects of his guilt would diminish some of my outrage. Still as Alex has mentioned above, a member of the public caught striking someone with a baton would find themselves in the dock no matter how cocky their victim. Thus should it be for a policeman using needless violence. As for attempting to cover-up, deny or whitewash! That just stinks of corruption and should also not go unpunished. Tax payers are the employers, an employer would need to think hard about dismissing a manager that attempted to distract, mislead or deceive them about an important issue.

Post comment