Caught: Ian Tomlinson Assaulted by UK Police

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes --who will watch the watchmen? We will, it turns out, with cell phones and digital cameras, with Flickr, YouTube, Indymedia and, on this occasion, some help from the old media in the form of the Guardian newspaper.

The death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson on his way home through this month's G20 protests in London was dismissed at first by the police as an unfortunate coincidence; a post mortem showed that he had died of a heart attack. Protesters, officers claimed, had pelted them with bottles as they tried to give first aid. Those of us who experienced the police's tactics on that day--the "kettling" of demonstrators, journalists and passers by, the baton charges in full riot gear against peaceful protesters, the German shepherds straining at the leash--found it hard to credit this quick and anodyne explanation. Three days later the Guardian printed photographs of Tomlinson lying at the feet of riot officers with testimony from named witnesses who had seen him being attacked. The Independent Police Complaints Commission criticised the paper for upsetting Tomlinson's family.

Then, almost a week after Tomlinson's death, the Guardian published on its website footage shot by--of all things--a New York fund manager who was there out of curiosity, which clearly shows Tomlinson being pushed roughly to the ground from behind by an officer in riot gear. The video put a girdle round the earth in less than forty minutes. Overnight, the IPCC took control of the investigation. A new post mortem was ordered; the policeman in the video eventually came forward and was--eventually--suspended, though he has not yet been questioned.

Meanwhile, the photos and witness accounts of police violence against protesters and journalists have multiplied. The Guardian has put together a dossier; human rights lawyers are assembling evidence. Senior police officials have been ordered to justify their tactics at the protest. It's beginning to look as though this story--which some have called Britain's Rodney King moment--may not end with a cathartic scapegoating of the one unlucky officer whose victim happened to die. Numbed by the memory and threat of terrorism, like the proverbial frog in boiling water, we've got too used to living in a surveillance state. In February it became illegal to take pictures of police which might "be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"--i.e. pretty much any pictures of the police. The aftermath of Ian Tomlinson's death has proved that law unenforceable, and showed what can be done if enough citizens turn their cameras on the watchmen.

Comments (12)

1. When I hear the declaration "peaceful protesters" I immediately become suspicious for they are rarely so.

   Posted by pyeatte at 04/12/2009 @ 10:06am

2. The saddest thing about modern demonstrations is that unless a lot of property gets damaged - or a human being gets seriously injured or killed - it hardly gets any media attention at all.

   If it does, the vanishingly tiny band of inevitable pro-status-quo counter-demonstrators are certain to get equal time.

   The messages the media send are clear: It doesn't matter how many of you malcontents show up to demonstrate. Unless some of you damage some property or get badly hurt, we'll trivialize you and your pathetic cause. Of course, if something does get damaged or somebody gets hurt, we'll assume that it discredits your entire movement.

   And remember, above all, that as a matter of policy, we the media will treat damage to property and injury to human beings as equally dire crimes, unless of course this property is PRIVATE property, in which case we'll make it clear that the property is more important.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 04/12/2009 @ 12:34pm

3. The saddest thing about modern demonstrations is that ......it hardly gets any media attention at all.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 04/12/2009 @ 12:34pm

   How is this sad? Fact is few knows anything about the G20, nor cares. Perhaps there should be a Protest TV channel.....a mobile and int'l equivalent to C-Span and you activists-type can tune in 24/7 and get your daily dose.

   I get only over-the-air TV broadcasts and for 98.736% of the time, it's more than I need....but I believe if one wants and willing to pay for, hundreds of choices are available.....down to the hobbyists interested in fine wood works. Surely, there is a market for protest-lovers......LOL!

   I tentatively plan to attend the Tea Party come April 15.....wonder how much MS "media attention" we'll get? If not much, guess that'll mean no violence are expected from us law-abiding taxpayers (& suckers), huh?

   Posted by Happy at 04/12/2009 @ 1:28pm

4. I tentatively plan to attend the Tea Party come April 15.....wonder how much MS "media attention" we'll get? If not much, guess that'll mean no violence are expected from us law-abiding taxpayers (& suckers), huh?

   Posted by Happy at 04/12/2009 @ 1:28pm

   Yeahhh! Protest for greed!

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/12/2009 @ 3:02pm

5. Truth in the media and responsible reporting are hard to find. I just listened to an episode of The Joan Kenley Show (progressive Bay Area podcast) called <a href="http://www.joankenley.com/20090411.html">The Media: What's True, What's Not</a> on the same topic - media manipulation, how headlines are shaped by the media, government, and corporations. It ties well into this post, has Norman Solomon (founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy) as a guest.

   Posted by Olivery at 04/12/2009 @ 3:53pm

6. If this happened at the protest at the Bank of England, then it might have taken place after the protest ended when the police blocked the thousands of protesters from exiting the area. As I said at the time here, that's an awfully strange thing to do if you want to avoid violence, but a smart thing to do if you want to provoke it in order to give the demonstrators a black eye in the press. That is, unless someone films the cops beating someone who later dies.

   Posted by cka2nd at 04/12/2009 @ 4:18pm

7. The "press" such as it is, is complicit.

   The story of what was really taking place was by definition there all the time.

   Each time new light is shed on the events at the G20 and thus makes it to the consciousness at large, one should remember what fare was available on (the protesters, flotsam and jetsam hodgepodge as they were were just drunk, and partying) CNN and the (yep, yep) MSMinions in general, for, lets us call it "contrast therapy."

   It is chickens coming home to roost.

   It started when they found they out could kick the mentally ill out on the streets, with impunity ... then continued through the war on drugs, and various and sundry election cycles.

   The same techniques are now being reflected straight out of the mirror as it were, back at the majority, and now, fresh new victim consumers.

   Now it is just as in the tale, the part when they have run out of, finished feeding and looting everyone else.

   You see, they've run out of real ... trade communists, socialists, and unionists, the faux attempts at their resurrection is just the sounds of the aforementioned chickens, pecking at the living room floor carpet.

   Indeed world war three has already started, if the financial attack on Citigroup had been done in a commensurate way against say, Northrup Grumman, the nature of the act would have been obvious ...

   Posted by V at 04/12/2009 @ 6:16pm

8. Another murder by criminals in police uniforms. A crime we know well in the U.S. Welcome aboard Britain.

   Posted by Milhaus at 04/12/2009 @ 8:29pm

9. Demonization of law enforcement is atypical of leftist extremist who actually only EXIST for their hatred of American and all FREE societies!

   These cowards know that anywhere else in the world they would be put down like MAD DOGS! One day they will recieve their just rewards for such insulence and hatred of liberty, freedom, and the rights afforded under our constitutional society!

   Funny thing is there will probably be no one willing to come to your aide! Peace be to you!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/13/2009 @ 06:42am

10. No, just no sympathy for criminals or tolerance for elitistism of any manner.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/13/2009 @ 07:21am

11. No, just no sympathy for criminals or tolerance for elitistism of any manner.-----Posted by comancheamerican at 04/13/2009 @ 07:21am

    Think I'll mosey back to the thread on....Scooter Libby and see what RIO said then.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 07:50am

12. In February it became illegal to take pictures of police which might "be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"--i.e. pretty much any pictures of the police.

    posted by Maria Margaronis on 04/12/2009 @ 07:42am

    Just a matter of time before we face the same issue here. Don't they realize that the police ARE the state sponsored the terrorist.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/13/2009 @ 10:16am