Tuesday, July 27, 2010

G20 police news: London murder and Toronto standown

Some G20 news.

First, a flashback to the death of Ian Tomlinson.

I did a number of posts on the murder by police at the G20 summit in England.
For those that may be unfamiliar you can go back and refresh your memories
Here, Here , HERE, HERE and HERE

Apparently, I did more posts on that murder by the authorities then I realized.
Hoping there are no doubles there? Let me know?
Anyway, so Ian Tomlinson, killed by London Police. In a nutshell.
There was an inquiry. And so far as the vast majority of inquiries are usual time wasting exercises in public relations for the ruling class. This one stands out as being more of the same.

Ian Tomlinson: a story of justice denied

Inquiry into Ian Tomlinson's death at a G20 protest in London prompts more questions than answers

Julia Tomlinson had been told by police her husband had died of natural causes as he tried to get home through the G20 protest in London, and there was nothing suspicious about the death.

But as she watched footage shot by a New York fund manager and handed to the Guardian, which was conducting its own inquiry, a different story unfolded.

But conveniently for the police... no charges will be laid

First, prosecutors believed there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the officer; but second, owing to both the time limit for common assault charges and medical uncertainties – crucially, the contested findings of a forensic pathologist who is now the subject of an inquiry by the General Medical Council – prosecutors did not believe there was a prospect a jury would convict the officer on any charge.

Actually I disagree, I believe the reason there will be no trial is precisely because a jury will find the murderer guilty. Can't let that happen, can they?

How would the police continue to act with impunity against the populace if they are going to be made accountable? Hmmm????

Might have them think twice about all the headbashing they engage in for the ruling classes of asses. Can't have that now can we?

Second: STAND-DOWN at the G20 in Toronto Canada

Another one I covered in several posts, that vast majority of them on this page

Warmington: Cops had hands 'cuffed

Who made the decision for police to stand down despite the fact the city was under attack?

And why?

Was it a police decision or political?

These should be the cornerstone questions of an external review surrounding the chaos of the G20.

After all, police officers were trained to stop the Black Bloc anarchists, were appropriately equipped and massively manned.

As downtown Toronto witnessed burning police cars and a small group of thugs on a rampage, a police source tells me the only thing that stopped the officers from doing that was an order telling them not to. They tell me they could have rounded up all, or most of them, in no time

I don't buy the "confusion" angle that is being put forth in this article. This is standard excuse making. Bottom line, the police were told to stand down and they did. It should have been obvious anyway.

The government had to justify, somehow, the over 1 billion dollar price tag. They had to justify the clamp down on ordinary citizens, the use of special powers. The enactment of special laws. And the agent provocateurs provided just that opportunity.

1 comment:

  1. I had made a long comment, and then erased it in error at work . . . bloody hell.

    Synopsis: We know the G20 guys are the real evil terrorists . . . the financial slavery terrorists, so let's arrest them.

    Big, public arrest. We have the numbers, and if we really wanted to, could not be stopped.

    Remember the cows in the field analogy?