Justice for Ian Tomlinson!

I have been waiting a long time to do a piece on the G20 summit protests of 2009 and as the enquiry has opened into the death of newspaper salesman Ian Tomlinson, this seems to me to be the perfect time to raise the profile of the incident and call for everyone to carefully study the circumstances surrounding the case.

On 1 April 2009, Ian Tomlinson had been selling newspapers in London at the time of the G20 summit protests. At approximately 7.15pm, Tomlinson encountered a police line upon trying to take his usual route home and was turned away by officers. Those same officers would later accuse Tomlinson of obstructing the police line, which was the basis for the events that would follow.

As Tomlinson walked away from the police line with his back to officers and his hands in his pockets, PC Simon Harwood first struck the father-of-nine across the left thigh with his extendible baton. Immediately afterwards, the officer then thrust the full weight of his body into Tomlinson's back, throwing him to the floor.


The events were filmed by an American investment fund manager, who passed the footage to the Guardian the next day. He claimed that he had stopped filming immediately after the event because he was scared that the police might react violently to seeing him film. The footage was subsequently placed on YouTube and can be found by clicking here.

Tomlinson received no assistance from police as he lay in the street - those same officers who had been involved in the assault upon him later shamefully claimed that it was protesters who had prevented him from receiving medical assistance. Conflicting reports subsequently suggested and then denied a head injury that he suffered upon hitting the floor and how dazed he seemed as he walked away.

Tomlinson collapsed less than five minutes later and died.

When footage of the incident appeared in the press, The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) opened a criminal inquiry. Subsequent inconsistencies in post-mortem reports meant that a cause of death could not be agreed on. Tomlinson was known to be a heavy drinker and cirrhosis of the liver was cited as a potential cause, along with the possibility of a heart attack or internal bleeding following the impact when he was thrown to the floor.

PC Harwood came to court earlier this month with a promise that he would not face criminal proceedings as a result of any evidence that he gave at the enquiry. He responded by saying that he wished to do all that he could to try to help. It is small wonder that members of Tomlinson's family left the courtroom as Harwood admitted that Tomlinson was not a threat, and that he struck him for the 'almost defiant' nature of his stance. In complete contrast to the evidence that can be clearly viewed by anyone who watches the video, Harwood then scandalously claimed that Tomlinson 'invited confrontation'.


While the emotive language of death and murder is thrown around with abandon in the media, it cannot be said that Harwood was directly responsible for Tomlinson's death. However, the evidence clearly raises massive concerns about the role of officers in the incident and highlights Harwood's reckless aggression in dealing with Tomlinson. The forthcoming misconduct hearing with the Metropolitan Police may well see the end of Harwood's career, but delays on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service have prevented him from being charged with actual bodily harm in the manner that he so clearly deserves.

The inquiry will reopen debate about the traditional model of policing by consent in the UK, highlighting as it does the continued breakdown of relations between the public and the police forces, particularly when policing large-scale protests within London. If it wishes to regain public confidence, the Metropolitan Police should begin by throwing the book at PC Harwood for the cowardly thuggishness that he showed towards Ian Tomlinson on 1 April 2009.

What's OK to Say?

I'm seeing, hearing and reading enough bad news about the state of the country right now to fill a thousand blogs. The UK is cutting corporation tax for the largest companies to a point at which they'll soon be paying less in the pound than you and I will. Smaller companies will of course continue to go out of business while the banks refuse to lend to them and bonuses continue to be racked up a few milion pounds at a time. The newspapers have revealed what is hardly a secret at all really - that the Tory Party is bankrolled by hedge fund managers and senior bankers, which explains, if we hadn't already guessed, why this government has no intention of going to town on financial institutions.

But you can get bogged down in bad news, of course. I might not be wealthy, but I'm hardly in danger of starving to death. I may not be a banker, but I'm not tied to a desk for twelve hours a day so that my soul can be sucked out through my eyeballs in a mindless search for profit. Sometimes it's important to get perspective.

While we're on that particular subject, I read earlier this week about the case of Sarah Baskerville, a Department of Transport official who took a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (IPCC) because Twitter posts she had written about being hungover at work were reported by several national newspapers.

Quite how these posts could clarify as a national newspaper story is beyond me, but newspapers will print what they think will be read, so fair enough. The IPCC ruled, correctly in my opinion, that things posted on Twitter should be considered public. But is it really that much of a sin to admit to being hungover at work? It is not as if she had confessed to rubbing shoulders with foreign mafioso, or admitted to cocaine binges with transsexual prostitutes. Even if she had, does her lifestyle matter in the slightest as long as she does her job? Where do we draw the line about acceptable behaviour? Would this lady's employer have preferred her to lie about her vices and stay home instead?

This of course has tremendous implications for anyone writing a blog. The views on this page are mine and mine alone, but I am always mindful that I represent my local county council as an employee, and my trade union as a branch officer. Neither are perfect organisations and I would feel justified in criticising policy decisions made by each. Nonetheless, I have to take a pragmatic viewpoint to such criticisms and realise that there is a time and a place for criticism and conjecture, and maybe this is a place of last resort.

Social media is all about telling other people what you are doing, seeing and thinking. It reflects our tremendous desire to contribute to shared experiences with those around us. Dilbert creator Scott Adams has written about the kind of future society in which our activities are potentially viewable by everyone else at all times. He concluded that he was safe from prying eyes by making sure that his life is, in his own words, 'coma-inducingly dull'. I see a litle bit of fellowship in that admission. Facebook and Twitter positively encourage the publication of the inane, and it is no bad thing. We know that the people who love us are interested in even the most insignificant details of our lives, and this is why we share them. If people don't like your post, there's another one along in a minute.

Social media has tremendous potential for educating prople and bringing them together in the future. However, we should not see it as a replacement for face-to-face interaction and we should also not use it as an excuse to take ourselves too seriously! It is entirely possible to be professional and do an excellent job and still be a human being with all the fragilities and weaknesses that come with the territory. Now, I know it's a weeknight, but does anyone fancy a drink?