Thursday, 22 July 2010

No police officers to be charged in conjunction with Ian Tomlinson.

Whilst we're on the subject of Britishness, here's something we can all feel proud of: cops without guns. The fact that we don't yet live in a police state whereby officers of the law can shoot first and ask questions later, where innocent people can be killed at random for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because that would be awful, wouldn't it. That would change the entire nature of the contract between state and citizen. Nobody would want that.

By the way, it has just been announced that the police officer responsible for the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last year will not face any criminal charges. The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, announced this morning that the officer, who was caught on video attacking the 47-year-old father of nine with a baton and shoving him to the ground, will not face criminal charges because of conflicts in the postmortem reports.

You know, those postmortem reports, the first of which seemed to confirm that Tomlinson had died of a heart attack, as per the initial police account, an allegation that was undermined by the second report, conducted on behalf of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which found that Tomlinson died from internal bleeding. Tomlinson's family wanted a charge of manslaughter brought against the officer in question, but the CPS are adamant that there is not sufficient evidence to conclusively prove "a causal link between the assault on Mr Tomlinson and his death. On that issue, there is disagreement between the medical experts."

Hypothetically speaking, one might imagine that a disagreement between medical experts would be easy to engineer on any issue given a compliant coroner or two- even if there were video, CCTV and post-mortem evidence suggesting that, contrary to police reports, a certain innocent bystander was knocked violently to the ground and prevented from receiving proper medical assistance as he collapsed and died of his injuries. Hypothetically speaking, one might imagine that it'd be simple to get your tame experts to disagree about absolutely anything, especially if that disagreement were likely to impede embarrassing and uncomfortable further enquiry of the sort that might challenge the gradual erosion of innocent citizens' right to feel safe when the police are on the streets.

The announcement comes precisely five years to the day after the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell tube station on 22 July 2005. Again, nobody was charged in connection with the death of the innocent Brazilian. The Tomlinson and De Menezes families are currently gathered outside Scotland Yard - a building with more CCTV cameras than the whole of Finland - in protest, alongside concerned members of the public. Last night, I spoke to some of the protesters as they were preparing for their demonstration; even before the announcement had been made, the organisers were firmly convinced that the CPS would "find some technicality or other to make sure that no charges are brought."

No police officer has ever been charged in connection with the death of a civilian in Britain or Ireland, and even in the digital age, where the public as well as the state can use technology to hold wrongdoers to account, there's clearly no reason to interrupt that pattern. The message is clear: video evidence is the prerogative of the state alone. The police watch us, and our attempts to watch them back are fundamentally suspect, especially when we happen to catch them doing something a bit naughty, like, just by way of example, pummelling an innocent newspaper salesman to death. Let's not rock the boat, eh?


  1. "No police officer has ever been charged in connection with the death of a civilian in Britain"
    None has been convicted but there have been unsuccessful prosecutions. See

  2. Absolutely right. Any idea who we should write to? As in, should it be Keir Starmer or should we write to the Home Secretary instead?
    Are there any petitions going round?

  3. Actually, there have been prosecutions of police officers
    in connection with civilian deaths, such as those charged
    with causing death by dangerous driving. When it comes to charging agents of the state with murder or manslaughter, you need to look at Northern Ireland where soldiers have been charged, and convicted. It might be nice if Finchley were as British as Northern Ireland.

  4. And the police wonder why they aren't popular.

    I'm really worried about what's going to happen when the British public begin to protest en masse regarding the cuts coming down the pipeline. I think we know what to expect from the authorities.

  5. In the war against terror and agitators there are bound to be causalities and collateral damage. But it IS a price worth paying to maintain our freedom and the British way of life.

  6. As Michael Carley said, police officers have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Can there really have been no convictions?

    One piece of good news. Freddie Patel has been found guilty of misconduct. Well, of acting in a way that 'amounted' to misconduct. He may get struck off.

    It's much of a muchness. It's too late for justice now, the damage is done, as was always the intention. What's left is a policeman who will be disciplined for shoving someone, not manslaughter. Kick Simon Harwood off the force? They don't even have to do that, if they decide it would make them look worse than just brazening it out, which I know the modern police are happy to do.

    They're drifting outta touch. God help us all.

  7. It wasn't the police who said he was prevented from giving medical assisatnce it was the ipCC and you said "it has just been announced that the police officer responsible for the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last year will not face any criminal charges"if the medical report says he died of a heart attack ,then the p.c who pushed him wasn't reposnible for his death,


Comments are open on this blog, but I reserve the right to delete any abusive or off-topic threads.