Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note to Jasper Jackson

Jasper, if you see this, please e-mail me regarding the copyright status of your photograph — slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Thanks! :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian Tomlinson

Copied from Talk:2009 G-20 London summit protests.

In light of the video footage of Tomlinson's fall before his death, does anyone object if I create an article about him using the material here? I'm checking in case anyone feels it's inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Because he was not notable aside from his tragic death, I'm not sure that it is appropriate to create an individual page. As the investigation into his death continues, there may later be reason to create a separate page. Fences and windows (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fences, it wouldn't be appropriate to create an individual page for Mr. Tomlinson until the IPCC investigation is complete as that would inevitably determine the majority of the content of the page and until that is completed the full facts won't be known Lodi01 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll hold off in that case. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see someone else created this. It is turning into a major incident in the UK. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On wikinews, we still have the old report, where the news concern a protestor collapsing in the street, and then assisted by the police, while they struggle to keep the protestors away (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/G20_protester_dies_after_collapsing). A very different event. I found the new source here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7989027.stm

We have a lot of new sources, with much attention been gathered around the video (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=g20+death). I believe this is a case for a new news entry, with an update link to the old one. Perhaps someone here could help write the story. Maziotis (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be good enough to copy the Wikipedia story? I'm happy to do it, but I don't fancy having to do a rewrite, as I've just spent a lot of time on this one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles are very short, so I guess copying only a portion would be good. You could change a few words, or someone else could do it, as some information would be added. Maziotis (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at Wikinews, and if I can do it quickly, I will. If not, hopefully someone else can pilfer bits and pieces from the article here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work, this is a well written article. G-20 Meltdown needs some work. Fences and windows (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

British newspaper vendor dies following assault by police, inquiry begins has not been published on wikinews yet, does it need further revision?SriMesh | talk 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This article on the main page

It should be on wikipadia main page, either as a news item or a did you know item.--Sum (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It will not be accepted by ITN. ITN is not a news service, it posts items of international significance or unusual occurrences. Such cases as these are all too common. Unsolved criminal investigations concerning individuals certainly do not tend to be posted until a verdict is reached and even then there is no guarantee. Try DYK. --can dle •wicke 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add it to ITN, but not having a PhD in template management, was unable to. I do think it would be appropriate for the front page, if anyone else knows how to do it, given the amount of coverage in the UK. The international significance is that here again we have an apparent police assault being exposed because members of the public shot video footage of it and released it to the media/Web. See recent cases in San Francisco and Vancouver (BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and Robert Dziekański Taser incident), as well as, most famously, Rodney King. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of which seem to have featured on ITN. :) And what you have just done is prove my point quite extensively that such investigations are commonplace. And therefore not significant enough to bypass the (so far losing) debate which is already taking place at ITN about it. :) --can dle •wicke 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I will also make the point that Ireland's emergency budget has been getting a significant amount of coverage in its country but that does not guarantee it a place at ITN. I'm afraid your reasoning for having this case on the Main Page is slightly flawed there. But, as I said previously, maybe DYK will accept it. :) --can dle •wicke 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke, this incident was exposed on, and to some extent by, the Internet. It was an investment fund manager from New York who took the video. It was bloggers from all over the world who were at the protest who started writing about it on the Web, so that witnesses came forward. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, are you aware that discussion over ITNs habitually and traditionally takes place at WP:ITN/C as opposed to on the talk page of a particular article? And that opinion has already been expressed there on this article? --can dle •wicke 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Article, as presented, belongs on Kikinews not Wikipedia

the article, as currently presented, reads as a news article and not as an encylcopeidic one. this version would seem better suited in wikinews with an encyclopeidic version presented here.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. I believe the several news reports presented here are describing an historic event. If you look at the implications this has on our confidence in social institutions like the police and the news, I think you will see this fit to be recorded for many years to come. I suppose it's all a question of time. This is too hot right now. We have to wait and see how the situation develops and change the article accordingly. But I do think that you have to take into consideration that in this case the news reports are part of the article's interest itself. The way the media handle this from the start became the news. So, don't let yourself be fooled by the expressions in the article concerning the presentation of a news source, as a summary of a news entry itself. Maziotis (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is not about the historic quality of the event, but about the style of the article. It is far too long and detailed for an encyclopedia article. As the original comment correctly noted, there should be a *news version* elsewhere and an *encyclopedia version* here, not a total removal. Maziotis's comments are political and emotional, not pertaining to style and presentation. 76.23.157.102 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Police autopsy

Philogo, what do you mean by a police autopsy? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian reported that the first autopsy as a police autoposy; I am afraid I do not know what that signifies, but in the context of this unfolding story in might be important, so I would liek to stay. There was no mention in the reports of that autopsy of anything other than the casue of death (heart attack); there was no mention of nay bruises or cuts etc. I find that rather disturbing. To spell it out, suppose: Cop whacks man, Cop medics take him away, copy doctors in opy post mortem (autopsy?) say natural causes, cop doctors will provide no other details. Press raise question. Cops investigate cops. Independent watchdog leaps cops to investigate cops. Cops tell newspaper to not talk to family. etc. No mention of cops of impounding of cops filming. I am reminded of Blair Peach.--Philogo (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps police procedural may be some use? --can dle •wicke 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Phil. I don't know the significance of it either. I would imagine all autopsies are conducted by staff working for the coroner. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On checking it is describes as a (police) postmortem, not sure if this necessarily involves an autopsy. An autopsy is normally called is the death is not apparently of natural causes, I believe.--Philogo (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they're the same thing. There are different procedures within an autopsy, some more rigorous than others, depending on circumstances. But they are all called autopsies or post mortems, to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

I would not have thought that a coroner had been appointed at that stage. People die all the time. If a doctor signs a death certificate giving a cause of death which is a natural cause, then a coroner is not appointed: otherwise the coroners courts would be jammed packed. We do no know who carried out the postmortem or who singned the death certificate. If he were taken to a hosital I should imagine a doctor there would sing the certificate. The police call a police surgeon/doctor if the death occurs in a police station. All we can do it report what is said in citeable sources. and I cannot say I have seen any mention of first or second autopsy only of a postmortem examination. There was an inquest today (I understand) so a coroner has now been appointed. He or she may order an autopsy, although I read a policeman quoted as saying "It will take a brave coroner to record anything other than natural causes". Brave presumably because...erm...--Philogo (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The newspapers reported that the second autopsy/post mortem is believed to have happened on April 9, conducted by Nat Carey. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Trim uneeded material

I think this article could do with some wholesale removal of selected information, or mergeing of sub-sections, and a refocus on the core information about the incident and investigation.

I think the background section is totally overboard, and stuffed with masses of loosely relevant information that better resides in the main articles aboouth the MET/CLP/TSG/IPCC. The duplication of logos and charts that again are all in these other articles is also really distracting, and not exactly needed to understand this article.

And a 'Blogger's' Response section? Really? If US Airways Flight 1549 only mentions Twitter in an EL, when that was a quite infamous new media exclusive, I'm sure the furious reactions of bloggers about this incident is hardly adding anything groundbreaking to this 2009 article. And I'm sure this is not the first case where the internet has been important in assisting investigatinos.

As an aside, I don't think a 'Call for witnesses' section is at all appropriate for an encyclopoedia article at all, but I'm not so deluded to think that removing that would stick at all.

MickMacNee (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It might stick. I'm not so keen on it either. Also not sure about the bloggers' section. I do think the background about the Met/City of London police/IPCC should stay in some form, because people outside London, and many inside, won't know the difference between the first two, and people outside the UK won't know what the IPCC is. The relationships between them are quite crucial to understanding what's going on here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I agree with you, and have removed the bloggers section and appeal for witnesses. We could perhaps restore the bloggers bit if more information becomes available about their role, but you're right that there's not enough yet. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the police logos and the chart, and I combined those sections to make them shorter. I did add one Met image to break up the text. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that I'm very impressed by the existence, the formatting, and the content of the section "How the story emerged." It is a rare and stunning use of the advantages of a wiki's medium, while remaining effective and entirely appropriate prose. Bravo. --Kiz o r 07:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kizor! :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MickMacNee that there is too much detail in the background section, and probably in other sections. Wikipedia has a tendency to focus in too much detail on current events, and this is a prime example of this. Much of this information should be pared back. Fences and windows (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The material that MickMacNee wrote about has been either removed or reduced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Language: "Apparently no provocation"

Summer, I reverted your edits because I feel the current version uses more neutral language. The facts and images speak for themselves. We shouldn't over-egg it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing stinks.80.7.238.150 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this section of the discussion page. Well, the video simply does not show any provocation, so saying "appears" implies an unjustified doubt. It's just weasel language.--Sum (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

People keep changing that the video "appears to show no provocation" on Tomlinson's part to "does not show any" (which I've changed to "shows no provocation," just because it's tighter). However, I still think "appears to show" is better. It is more neutral, less decisive, makes us sound more reasonable. What counts as "provocation" in a case like this is subjective to some degree, and it's going to be for a court to determine. It is clear that words were exchanged, but we don't know what was said. It's also clear that he was walking very slowly, but we don't know how slowly. We don't know what happened just before the footage etc.

For all these reasons, I think we sound more encyclopaedic if we say "appears to show no provocation," or something similar e.g. "shows no obvious provocation on Tomlinson's part" -- something like that.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend something like, The Video gives no indication of provocation, basically what i'm thinking is saying that the video shows none but it is not a 100% reliable, and that there is no ruling out provocation before the start or that the video may have been edited. Lodi01 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin Turkeyphan^t 12:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Common "machine guns" fallacy

I've deleted the reference to "submachine guns" used by the TSG, as this is a common but erroneous claim. British police use a semi-automatic versions of the MP5 machine-gun and other similar weapons, i.e. they lack the ability to fire on automatic, and are therefore designated a "carbines" not a "sub/machine guns". A weapon that cannot fire full-auto is by definition not a machine gun. See List of police firearms in the United Kingdom. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem now is that the source after the sentence doesn't say what you added. Do you have a source? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Try List of police firearms in the United Kingdom and the sources thereof. The bottom line is that British police (with the exception of the Ministry of Defence police) do not use "machine guns," despite what the press commonly and sloppily describe as such. The most common British police long-gun is a semi-automatic version of the Heckler & Koch MP5, which 'was designed as a machine gun, but by definition can't be one when it has its full-auto capability removed. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you find a reliable source other than The Daily Telegraph? Then we can say A says X, though B says Y. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the relevance to this article? None of the officers involved is reported to be carrying any gun, I fail to see any reason to include more than a sentence on the TSG, with a link to the relevant article. I've altered the text to the specific weapon, as that is neutral-ish because of the conflicting sources - although I know Nick Cooper is correct that they are not, as per Waldren etc.

Wnjr (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because the Telegraph says "machine guns" doesn't make it true. Please take a look at List of police firearms in the United Kingdom, and you will see that the only forces noted as using fully automatic weapons (i.e. "machine guns") are the Ministry of Defence Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. All long-guns used by other forces are specifically noted as being "semi-automatic carbines," i.e. although they are based on weapons that often have full-auto capability, the ones used by British police do not. The Metropolitan Police Authority page from 2002 here lists the firearms available to the Service, and includes:

MP5 Carbine

This weapon is available for deployment in four versions:

A2 with solid stock.

A single shot 9mm weapon operationally deployed by the Diplomatic Protection Group-SO16, Heathrow Airport Security officers and, in limited numbers, by Royalty Protection-SO14.

A3 with folding stock

A single shot 9mm weapon operationally deployed by the SO19 Firearms Branch, Belmarsh Court Security and SO12-Special Branch officers for ease of carriage.

MP5 Kurtz

A fully automatic shortened version of the MP5 Carbine, available for SO12-Special Branch Protection officers only. This weapon requires specific ministerial authority prior to its deployment and has very rarely been operationally carried.

Silenced MP5 Carbine

This weapon is available for SO19 Specialist Firearms Officer (SFO) use. It has a very limited usage and has never been operationally deployed to date.

Note the first two are specifically stated as being "single shot" (i.e. semi-automatic). Only the third type is identified as being fully-automatic, and that it is only available to one unit (not the TSG) under exceptional circumstances. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong. It's not a question of right or wrong, but of what the sources are saying. The Telegraph obviously spoke to a Met spokesman before writing this, and that's what he wrote. If we want to question it, we need to find another, better, source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So a clear policy statement by the body that oversees the Metropolitan Police, is less authoratative than a press that repeatedly make this sloppy but false claim? I would again urge you to read List of police firearms in the United Kingdom, but also Specialist Firearms Command, Specialist Firearms Officer, Authorised Firearms Officer, Armed Response Vehicle, and you will note that the weapons in question are uniformally described as "semi-automatic carbine" and never "fully-automatic"/"machine guns". In addition, this from Hansard deals directly with the same mistake.

This is a wide misconception because all most people know about the likes of the MP5 is what they see in films and TV, where they are invariably fully-automatic models, but the plain and simple fact is that the use of actual machine guns by British police is virtually non-existent, and the Telegraph is just wrong in suggesting the TSG have access to them. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Then please write to the Telegraph and ask them to correct it. If you're right, they will. Then we can change the article. I'm not being facetious in suggesting this; I mean it. Alternatively, do you have a source that says that they carry submachine guns is a common fallacy? If it really is a common fallacy, someone will have written about it probably. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's more a case that the misconception is so widespread that it rarely gets addressed directly except in the likes of Hansard and books dealing with the police use of firearms, which is what has informed the Wikipedia pages I have mentioned above. Do you honestly think that those pages would have ended up omitting all of mention of machine guns is they were actually in common use? The MPA page I cited clearly identifies only one fully-automatic firearm available to the Metropolitan Police, that there are special restrictions on its use, and that it is rarely deployed. The bottom line is that Wikipedia should not perpetuate inaccuracies, no matter how many otherwise reliable sources repeat them. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hansard link you provided shows that the Met does indeed have submachine guns, if I understood it correctly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read it again. The MP asking the question refers to "sub-machine guns," but the minister answering specifically corrects him with, "The weapon was not a sub-machine gun, but a carbine specially adapted to fire only one shot at a time." The MPA's report on "MPS firearms policy, performance and training" acknowledges that the force has a very small number of one type of actual machine, but that they are "available for SO12-Special Branch Protection officers only" (i.e. not the TSG), and the type requires, "specific ministerial authority prior to its deployment and has very rarely been operationally carried." By definition that does not include the "less qualified" Authorised Firearms Officers of the TSG. The MP5s used by the TSG and the vast majority of British police are single-shot semi-automatic weapons, so inherently are not "machine guns," and that is a fact, no matter how many times the media gets it wrong and says otherwise. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick, regarding your date format changes, if you change the date format in an image name, it becomes a red link. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - a bit overenthusiastic, I guess. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. Not all the dates were changed, so we have a bit of a mish-mash now. It's actually a fallacy that Brits only use 9 April. I'm British, and I've always written April 9. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Brits do always use the format 09-04 for 9 April and never for 4 September but September 4th is IMO more common than 4th September and is absolutely standard Brit English. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. People seem to get confused between the sequence when writing dates as numbers (e.g. Brits write 15/04/09 and not 04/15/09) and writing dates using the word for the month. Both Brits and Americans write April 15, though Brits may write 15 April too. But April 15 is perfectly standard e.g. UK Stocks -- Factors to watch on April 15 from Reuters; Newsboy's racing tips: Wednesday, April 15, Daily Mirror; ditto from The Sunday Times, and many more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Er.... no. DD/MM/YY is undoubtedly standard, but when written in full the day followed by the month is still the most prevalent in the printed press, the BBC (inc. the Radio Times), Hansard, etc. People still talk about "the sixth of June," "the fourth of July," and ""the fifth of November." Googling .gov.uk domains for a specific date as either "MM Month" or "Month MM" invariably shows the former outnumbering the latter by a factor of at least ten (e.g. "21 September" = 21,600 vs. "September 21" = 1,410, which is 15.3 to 1). Some newspapers seem to have made a conscious decision to use Month DD, possibly due to people's increased familiarity with the Month DD format, but they're not the majority. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Just a reminder that we can only say what reliable sources have said. People are removing things for reasons that aren't clear e.g. The Times wrote that it was the same group of officers who approached Tomlinson a second time 15 minutes or so after the first assault, and assaulted him again. But an editor removed that it was the same group. The editor may be right and The Times wrong, and maybe other sources agree with the editor, and we can add those opinions too. But in the meantime, the only reliable published source we have says it was the same group.

Ditto for any other disputed material. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil, we link inline to a reliable source when it supports a claim we make in the article. Your postmortem link did not do that. However, it's fine to add it to external links to inform people in general terms. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The link explained a term used in a claim made in the article, by by citing a very authoratative reference. I feel sure I have seen this done hundreds of times when a technical term occurs and it seema proper way to proceed. If there is a wiki-rule of some kind then do direct me to it. If you disagree on someting it is better to raise the matter on the talk page in the first instance, rather than just reverting; the latter path can lead to the dreaded edit wars; the former path can lead to resolution because other editors can assist if agreement not reached. You will note that I have reverted none of your edits; I would query you first here on the article's talk page. --Philogo (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, that's a fair point. My concern is that I'd like the lead to stay tight, well-written, accurate etc. You're right that it's fine to add explanatory footnotes; it just looks odd in the lead after we give the outcome of the first autopsy, as though we're linking to our source. I've added your link to "external links" in case anyone wants to look up what an autopsy is, though I suggest you also think about adding it, or material from it, to Autopsy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP tag

Reasons for removal 1) I Believe that he is dead 2) This isn't a biography 3) It seems to be sourced fairly well

Anyone disagree? Lodi01 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition of the tag is probably to remind us that BLP applies to the officer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I still hardly see how it applies, it is still after-all describing an event not a person, if the article was about Ian as a person or about the police offer that is understandable, but theres no need for the tag Lodi01 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to any article that mentions living people. We are going to have to be careful here, especially once the officer's named. But if we stick to good sources and don't go beyond what they say, we should be fine. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is an obvious blp minefield, blp applies not merely to bios but to any mention of living people and given the controversy around this death I felt it appropriate to tag this talk page. I am not saying the article violates blp right now, merely that we must be cautious. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree we should be cautious but not silent. If there are arrest we do not wish to prejudice a fair trial. Presumably we a farily safe if we merely quote what appears in the press etc.?--Philogo (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if we stick to what reliable sources publish, and source anything that might be challenged or that readers might want to look up for themselves, we should be okay. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

6:07 pm: First alleged encounter with police

Another eyewitness photographed him 85 minutes earlier in confrontation with police and deliberately blocking the path of a riot van .. The IT worker said he was drunk and was manhandled out of the way by four riot police after refusing to move

If this is indeed true, then it paints the subsequent incident in a very different light. To summarize what this Wikipedian quote is infering; is that Tomlinson provoked his own death. Now, all I would ask is; what is the name of the IT worker, what is the name of the Daily Mail reporter, where are the photographs of Tomlinson deliberately blocking the riot van?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emacsuser (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "To summarize what this Wikipedian quote is infering; is that Tomlinson provoked his own death" no, the quote is infering that he was intoxicated and refused to move, where does it say he provoked his own death? Or is that just an extremely ignorant opinion on your part? Do you believe that by not moving because an "officer of the law" orders you to move, this officer subsequently has the right to use excessive force? Whatever happened to moving around obstacles? But no I guess you're correct, people who stand their ground (especially whilst intoxicated) are asking for punishment (resulting in death), I like your fair opinion on matters, I really do, it's so.. human shall we say, or fair maybe. But opinions are apparently not valid on wikipedia so what you have said is not very helpful to anyone (especially society). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.68.72 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The images are linked to in the same sentence. The reporter's name is in the story; see the footnote after the sentence. The IT worker wasn't named, as I recall. The same images, and the same time, have been published elsewhere too.

A Wikipedian pointed out that the newspapers may have that time wrong by an hour, possibly because the camera was still an hour behind, so it would be 7:07 rather than 6:07, which would fit with Tomlinson's friend's statement about what time he left the newspaper stand. However, the newspapers are all reporting 6:07, so we have to stick with that for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The IT worker was named in both the Mail and the Sun as 'Ross Hardy', although the Mail has now removed this part from their constantly changing article, it is still in google's results at present.

Wnjr (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying that these articles keep changing. It's not only the Mail and Sun who are doing it. It means that, after a day or two, and sometimes sooner, our links may not say what our edits say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four. Ministry of Truth. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It feels that way. Really, what it means is that we should be using hard copies of newspapers only, which is not only very difficult, but kind of ironic, given that this story revolves around the importance of the Web in highlighting certain issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My hard copy is more accurate than your hard copy. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is fair enough I suppose to say what The Sun and the The Mail said that one 'Ross Hardy' said. However, a witness could see that somebody was in front of a vehicle, but you could not literally see that it was deliberate. It is also possile to see if somebody is swaying, shouting etc. but you cannot see that they are drunk (not dazed etc) hence the need for breathalysers. Stranger still is that you can cause your own death by beating by being earlier drunk and in the way of a police vehicle, unless it is well known that summary justice by way of execution by beating is the inevitable result of drunken jay-walking. Makes Tennaman Square troops (man lies in front on tank) seem relatively restrained.--Philogo (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This update from the Guardian appears to depict Tomlinson standing on the pavement at 7.08pm, apparently not blocking the riot van.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/ian-tomlinson-g20-photographs emacsuser (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So there does not seem to be any blocking of a van? Under what circumstances would that be "provocation" anyway? Turkeyphan^t 12:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Video of woman being slapped

This has been published by the Guardian today, which says it's from the recent memorial for Tomlinson. However, it's also on YouTube as having been taken on April 2 and posted six days ago. [3] I've removed it from the article until we find out when it was taken. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this has been explained. It is from April 2, take during an early vigil for Tomlinson, not the later memorial march. I'll add it back shortly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If this refers to "Nicola Fisher", the mail yet again comes up with some creative 'news'. Unlike Tomlinson, at least she's still around to give her side of the story. But is it aceptable for the daily rag to yet again trash someone in public.:

Take the glorifying of Nicola Fisher, who at the heat of battle between police and rioters spat at an officer while screaming obscenities. That he responded with his baton is utterly unacceptable and he, too, must be punished.

But is it any more acceptable that Miss Fisher, a one-time heroin addict and shoplifter who lives on benefit in Brighton, has made thousands by selling her story through the dubious offices of Max Clifford?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1171645/MAIL-COMMENT-The-danger-losing-trust-police.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwjL6ARBGRE emacsuser (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility of Police officers to prevent crime, and arrest perpetrators

In the video there are a lot of police officers watching the alleged assault. Are they under any obligation to intervene, or does the fact that "The decision to use force is made by the individual police officer, and they must account for that." mean they cannot?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just the difference between orders as a member of a police force, and power as a holder of the office of constable. Because it's up to the individual officer to use force only when reasonably necessary, it's also the duty of the other constables present to use force to prevent unnecessary use of force by others including constables.

Wnjr (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Has this been mentioned anywhere else? It seems very relevant to the death.Mein Kopf (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just basic police law, it's not specifically relevant, but it has been mentioned that no officer intervened.

Wnjr (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes

Anybody like the eccentric fixed size images we have? I attempted to make them MoS compliant but was reverted. Date formats need to be dd-mmm-yyyy here, as it is a UK subject. They certainly need to be consistent. --John (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

John, please don't start a forest fire. You posted on my talk page, and I have replied on yours. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Slim, check out MOS:IMAGES before you make any more of a fool of yourself. You're wrong. --John (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was right when I last looked; if it has changed, all that means is that your last revert stood. The MoS (and ArbCom) said that people shouldn't arrive at articles simply to make style changes over objections, then blame the MoS.

And the dates were consistent until someone changed some of them, but not all. I find this obsession with writing dates a certain way quite unnecessary. I am British, and I have always written April 15. Everyone in Britain knows what April 15 means. Change the formatting if you must (but not in the image title), but it's a side issue, or ought to be. But please leave the image sizes are they are. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

::"My last revert stood"? What are you on about? You seem very confused. You reverted me, in contravention of Help:Reverting. I have reverted nobody. You would know more about Arbcom than I do; it's astounding that you revert good faith changes then whine about Arbcom. We have MoS for a reason; it's to prevent articles from looking half-assed and amateurish as your childish revert left this article looking. I won't discuss this with you further, as I don't think you know the least thing about it. Instead I will listen to the consensus (if any) which forms; if the consensus is to have the dates in a mixture of formats and the images hard-coded to weird sizes (both in contravention of MoS), then so be it. Get more sleep, or whatever your problem is. Happy editing. --John (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1 April, 2009 &c. has crept up on me unawares: I would and do write 1st April, 2009 (or 1st April 1st, 2009) read as "The first of April (or April the 1st) i.e. the first day of the month. In UK we write in numbers 1/4/2009 never 4/1/2009 whcih confuses those across the pond. To avoid ambiguity I adopted 1 APR 2009 since my time in USA.--Philogo (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See my post in the section above. Brits write both April 15 (e.g. UK Stocks -- Factors to watch on April 15 from Reuters) and 15 April, though when writing in numbers, they always write 15/04/09. But when including the month as a word, where the number goes is optional. It seems especially odd to try to change what's written in footnotes, as though Brits won't be able to understand what April 15 means. :-( SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See MOS:DATE. "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month". It isn't particularly because anybody would be confused by using the wrong format, any more than spellings like "color" would be confusing, it is more about consistently applying formatting across the project to achieve a professional-looking product. Simple stuff. --John (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing much progress on this. Unless compelling reasons are presented not to, I intend to try again to make the date and image formats consistent with the MoS. --John (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

John, the MoS specifically says editors should not arrive at stable articles to make style changes over objections. The image sizes are fine. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the way this conversation is going. A case of WP:OWN on your part perhaps? And I am still waiting for you to strike your ~~lie~~ misstatement above. Will you do it now, please? --John (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

John, it looks like Slim has put a lot of good work into this article, and that she's willing to discuss different ways of doing things. Cool off and leave your emotions out of it, it's an encyclopedia. - Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.159.23 (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of the policing of public events

This deserves a seperate article, ihho.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

WikiProject quality rating

I have deservedly upgraded the article to B-class. I suggest someone nominates it for a Good article assesment. I reckon its comprehensive and well referenced enough to be a good article, or would only need a teensy bit more work to reach that level. Well done. Willy turner (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See section two above this. I wouldn't support it on these grounds at the moment. --John (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Willy, the feedback is much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Britain's Rodney King moment

I added to the last paragraph of the lead that the controversy around Tomlinson's death is being referred to as "Britain's Rodney King moment," sourced to The Nation, but someone removed it. I'd like to restore it, because it neatly sums up the kinds of debates Tomlinson's death triggered. Any objections? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It irritates me that nothing can be its own incident. Especially as it is nearly allways an american event that everything is likend too. I should not it was not me who removed it origanally.--Prophesy (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it was an American who shot the video and got it to the Guardian. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why his nationality is relevent...--Prophesy (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blair Peach

Someone has added a paragraph about Blair Peach to the section on the TSG. I'm not sure it's appropriate, because we don't have space here to give any other POV, so it feels overly selective. Any thoughts about it? Posting it below. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The TSG is the successor to the Special Patrol Group, which was reported to have been involved in the death of Blair Peach in April 1979, during a demonstration in Southall by the Anti-Nazi League against a National Front election meeting.^[1] Reportedly trapped inside a police cordon, Peach was knocked unconscious and died the next day in hospital. No firm evidence of an assault emerged, but it was claimed that he had fallen to a blow from a rubberised police radio belonging to the Special Patrol Group.^[2] Commentators are comparing the circumstances of his death to that of Tomlinson's.^[3]

I feel that the passage is relevant, and reasonably NPOV. I also feel that some mention should be made of the "serious, gratuitous and prolonged" attack." suffered by[Babar Achmad in 2003, at the hands of the tsg, which was denied until 2009.The loss of"a number of large mail sacks" containing details of other similar allegations against the officers, who are still serving. It provides useful context. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/18/babar-ahmed-met-police Mein Kopf (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As MK says Blair Peach - along with Kevin Gatley - is the best comparative that we have in terms of a death connected to a demonstration being attributed to police action. The Guardian specifically compares the cases here. As I attempted to point out previously, some of the other cases being included under "See also" have only tenuous connections. Stephen Waldorf and Jean Charles de Menezes were both shot in radically different circumstances from each other, let alone in compariosn to Tomlinson's death. The only similarity with Oscar Grant, Robert Dziekański and Rodney King is that the police actions were recorded (on "video," not "film," if we're being pedantic), which is overkill. The Sun/Hillsborough is barely relevent, and probably only came to someone's mind due to it being the 20th anniversary of the event this week. I'm going to rearrange and subdivide the list, but it really needs culling. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a heart attack

Krishnan Guru-Murthy says just now on Twitter:

breaking news - Ian Tomlinson did not die of a heart attack. the first post-mortem was wrong.
It was abdominal haemorrhage - which can be caused by all sorts of things. but crucial that 1st post-mortem was wrong.
heart attacks can cause bleeding, but this is a big point of disagreement between the pathologists on cause of death
Re Tomlinson : Cause of haemorrhage not known from second Post Mortem.

Can anyone find more WP-suitable sources? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I added one (BBC) about half an hour ago. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The original report apparently did not say heart attack. It said coronary artery disease and did note the abdominal bleed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-statements ; maybe there's a raw transcript available somewhere. 71.106.96.47 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)mh

I'm sure i remember reading somewhere that Tomlinson had a history of Heart Disease (or similar), but for the life of me cannot find the article i read it on (can't even remember where it was), also with the Officer being interviewed under caution its probably that some other extenuating circumstance existed otherwise it would be more likely the officer would be being interviewed for murder. Lodi01 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Criminalisation of Photography of police officers - POV?

The above mentioned paragraph gives a particular point of view on how the Counter Terrorism Act may be interpreted. The references are week in themselves, for example Dominic Lawson in the Times has said "My friend added that the very video evidence that has prevented Mr Tomlinson’s assailant from getting away with a criminal assault could now itself be prevented"

There dosent seem to be any considered legal opinion, and in the absence of a legal opinion it may be considered unlikely that the police would use this power in the way suggested.

Perhaps the matter needs further discussion under the article Counter-Terrorism_Act_2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keirstitt (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One opinion quoted in the paragraph is by Liz Davies, "a barrister, long-standing labour and peace movement activist and chairwoman of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. She writes this column in a personal capacity." That looks like a legal opinon to me. If taking any photographs of the police in such circumstnaces is illegal under the act it follows a fortiori (and not as a matter of opinion) that video evidence recorded in such circumstances as the assault on Mr Tomlinson would be illegal and such evidence could therefore be prevented. So long as we cite quotations and opinions we as editors or not guilty of POV, which is not to say whether the whole article might be prevented under the Counter-Terrorism_Act_2008. The article Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 has a fairly full paragraph on Criminalisation of Photography of police officers, with copious opinions and references including from Gordon Brown himself and Jacqui Smtih, see [4] or just Google the quote "the police have a legal right to restrict photography" for 269 hits --Philogo (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally i'de be tempted to remove the paragraph as it makes no real substantive addition to the article, as for starters the fact that press photographers were allowed to enter the area on the day basically automatically means the video is admissible as evidence as the police made no attempt to restrict press photographers, there are also apparent legal questions over freedom of the press, and i doubt a UK Judge would throw out the video as evidence as it would have been clearly visible to police officers that photographs and video's were being taken (and like i said as they did nothing they didn't evoke the CTA) Lodi01 (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think this is relevant to Tomlinson, simply because so many commentators are talking about Section 76 in the context of his death. It's not that anyone is going to question the legal status of the video. It's that taking videos or images like this is now strongly discouraged, because the police are known to be misusing Section 76 (or perhaps just misunderstanding it) to ask tourists to delete holiday snaps, for example. Commentators argue that citizens should be encouraged to take more images and videos in contentious citizen v. state situations, not have a law hanging over them that can be used to prevent it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please find a source for that claim about S.76. Police do appear to be (mis)using S.40 of TA 2000 (and have been for some time), but I have yet to hear, even on Flickr, of the police using any part of S.76. ninety:one 15:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"A Bedfordshire Police sergeant questions a press photographer under new counter terrorism laws on Saturday 21 March 2009. Justin Tallis, a London based freelance photographer and NUJ and BPPA member, was photographing an anti-immigration detention centre protest outside Yarl's Wood Detention Centre in Bedfordshire. The new controversial anti-terror law, section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, came into force on Monday 16th February 2009." Marc Vallee on Photoshelter

"21:35 - Climate Camp: A photographer was taken to one side by police and threatened under anti-terror legislation that he was not allowed to take pictures of police "engaged in their duty." Police confiscated his camera and attempted to delete all the photographs he'd taken. The photographer pulled out another camera to film them doing this, and was threatened again, but police then returned the first camera." London Indymedia, 1st April

"The report is concerned about the “improper use” of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 to prevent photographing or filming police. When the police broke up the climate camp, people were forced to delete images and film that showed the police in action." letter to The Times, 4th April

Wnjr (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, anything to do with deletion is made up. Even S.76, draconian as it is, doesn't go as far as deletion. Any officer that suggested that should be reported immediately. The first caption is misleading - the police don't have some kind of power to "question" people. The second source, scary as it sounds, makes no mention of S.76. The third source, the JCHR report referred to by the Times letter, expresses just the same "concern" as has always been expressed - in fact, that even goes some way to alleviating the concern by mentioning a recent CoA ruling. I'm as concerned as anybody about S76 - I was at the protest outside the Yard - but there has been a lot of misreporting over it. Anyway, this is beside the point of the article! ninety:one 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding deletion and powers, I'm fully aware of that, it's police officers that either aren't, or choose to appear not to be. I know that Section 76 was specifically mentioned on both occasions, having spoken to both photographers, the 2nd and 3rd refer to the same incident.

Wnjr (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are stories of this being misused all over the place, and in ridiculous ways. A tourist and his son were recently told by an officer to delete images they'd taken of buses in Wandsworth. :-) Will post a link if I come across it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. [5] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, not directly linked to S.76 - but that is shocking. Whilst the police have not yet given their side of the story, if true then the officer involved needs to go through disciplinary procedures for that. That can't be a misconception on his part - he must have genuinely been out to get them. That said, I've taken countless photos in London and haven't been stopped yet, so the world isn't quite ending! ninety:one 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One detail strangely missing is which government building the bus station is on the opposite side of the road junction from.... Nick Cooper (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What was the building? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Covered in Vauxhall#Vauxhall Cross, which helpfully has photos of both it and the bus station. Even if it wasn't the (unconvincing) reason given, it's odd that it's not mentioned. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said above: One opinion quoted in the paragraph is by Liz Davies, "a barrister, long-standing labour and peace movement activist and chairwoman of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. She writes this column in a personal capacity." That looks like a legal opinon to me. If taking any photographs of the police in such circumstnaces is illegal under the act it follows a fortiori (and not as a matter of opinion) that video evidence recorded in such circumstances as the assault on Mr Tomlinson would be illegal and such evidence could therefore be prevented. So long as we cite quotations and opinions we as editors or not guilty of POV, which is not to say whether the whole article might be prevented under the Counter-Terrorism_Act_2008. The article Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 has a fairly full paragraph on Criminalisation of Photography of police officers, with copious opinions and references including from Gordon Brown himself and Jacqui Smtih, see [5] or just Google the quote "the police have a legal right to restrict photography" for 269 hits. That would therofre appear to be the legal postion as confiormed by a barrister, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. Whether the police are "misusing" this power would have to be dfetemiend in court, although we can have our opinions. IMHO the more important question is whether is is reasonable and wise to give the police such power, a question for parliament. --Philogo (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

^ Underwood, Harry. [http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46954,features,blair-peach-30-years-on-death-of-a-political-protestor Blair Peach, 30 years on: death of a protestor\, The First Post, April 8, 2009.
^ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10560632
^ Roberts, Alison. I thought 'Oh my God, it’s like Blair Peach over again', Evening Standard, April 15, 2009.

[UnderwoodApril8-1] Underwood, Harry. [http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46954,features,blair-peach-30-years-on-death-of-a-political-protestor Blair Peach, 30 years on: death of a protestor\, The First Post, April 8, 2009.

[2] ttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10560632

[RobertsApril15-3] Roberts, Alison. I thought 'Oh my God, it’s like Blair Peach over again', Evening Standard, April 15, 2009.

[1]

[2]

[3]