Tag Archives: #G20killershavenames

PC Simon Harwood to face disciplinary charges for death of Ian Tomlinson – but FIT officers, ‘Bronze’ Robertson, G20 chief Broadhurst & top cop Stephenson all get off scot-free

As Reuters puts it:

The police officer who allegedly struck Ian Tomlinson and pushed him to the ground during last year’s G20 demonstrations shortly before the newspaper seller died was served with gross misconduct charges on Monday.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said Police Constable Simon Harwood would face allegations he struck Tomlinson with his baton on the leg and pushed him over, dangerous actions which inadvertently caused his death.

The use of force was alleged to be neither necessary nor proportionate.

In July, prosecutors ruled out bringing any criminal charges against Harwood over the incident with Tomlinson, which was caught on camera.

Footage showed Tomlinson, 47, being pushed in the back by a riot squad officer causing him to fall as he became caught up in the fringes of a violent demonstration in central London in April last year.

IPCC Commissioner for London Deborah Glass said the decision to include the allegation that Harwood’s actions caused Tomlinson’s death was a tough but correct decision.

“From the moment the video was published to the world in April 2009, there has been an overwhelming public feeling that the officer seen to strike Ian Tomlinson should be held accountable for his actions,” she said.

“I have agreed with the Metropolitan Police Service that the officer should face an allegation of gross misconduct.”

A three-person panel of two senior police officers and an independent member of the public chosen by the force’s governing body, the Metropolitan Police Authority, will preside over the disciplinary hearing, which unusually will be held in public.

If found guilty of gross misconduct, Harwood faces losing his job.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said in July Tomlinson had been on his way home and had not been taking part in the protests when the incident occurred.

He had been walking slowly with his hands in his pockets away from a line of riot squad officers when one moved forward, hit him on the leg with a baton and then pushed him forcefully in the back.

Tomlinson collapsed shortly afterwards and died. Starmer said no charges could be brought for manslaughter because of conflicting medical evidence.

An initial post-mortem recorded that Tomlinson had died from a heart attack, but two further checks showed the cause of death to be internal bleeding.

Even though Starmer said there was sufficient evidence to show that Harwood’s actions had constituted an assault, no charges for that could be brought because there was a six-month time limit.

Tomlinson’s family said at the time that the decision was a disgrace.

“The possibility Harwood might lose his job is not the genuine accountability that our family have waited so long for,” said Tomlinson’s widow Julia.

“Whilst we believe that any disciplinary hearings must be held in public, we have already been badly let down by the Crown Prosecution Service and have real worries that these misconduct proceedings will lead to yet another whitewash.”

Thug though Harwood may be, he did not act alone.

He assaulted Ian Tomlinson after a City of London dog handler had already used his animal to attack him.

He assaulted Ian Tomlinson in front of ‘political protest specialists’ of the Forward Intelligence Team, including part-time FIT cop PC Alan Palfrey from Camden borough.

He assaulted Ian Tomlinson in front of other ‘public order specialists’ of the Territorial Support Group, as well as volunteer riot-trained Level 2 officers.

He assaulted Ian Tomlinson with either the tacit approval or under the direct orders of Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson, the operational controller or ‘Bronze Commander’, himself in direct contact with Commander Bob Broadhurst, in overall charge of the G20 policing plan.

And as for Metropolitan Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson? Well, I think we can all guess just how much responsibility he takes for all this.

‘Ian Tomlinson, who’s he?’ – Full text of the letter issued by PC Simon Harwood’s solicitors to the media

Here’s the full text of the letter issued to the media by lawyers Reynolds Dawson on behalf of PC Simon Harwood, the Territorial Support Group police officer not being charged by the Crown Prosecution Service in connection with the death of Ian Tomlinson:

To all editors


Dear Sirs,


We are the solicitors for PC Simon Harwood. Attached to this letter is a photograph of our client.

There has of course been significant mainstream media interest arising from our client’s involvement in the policing of the G20 protests, as well as a great deal of threatening material published about him on the internet which has caused him and his family great concern.

Nevertheless, he is aware that the media will not allow his family and neighbours any peace until it has a photograph of him, and he has taken the view that the only way to protect them from harassment by the photographers camped outside their addresses is to provide one. At least then the responsible media will have no justification for further encroachment. We need not remind the press of their obligations in this regard under the PCC Code of Practice.

For the avoidance of doubt, it would be inappropriate for PC Harwood to comment publicly on the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision or on other proceedings in the way that others have chosen to. Accordingly, there could be no legitimate purpose in approaching PC Harwood for further comment.

Yours faithfully,


Pic: Rikki IndyMedia

Blog reports on the Justice for Ian Tomlinson demonstration in London yesterday:

Let me know if I have missed any.


Thank you to commenters milgram (Edinburgh Anarchists) and boyfromfishponds (Bristol Class War) for providing links to reports on pickets outside of London:

What price one man’s death at the hands of police? What price one man’s privacy at the hands of the media? Simon Harwood, Ian Tomlinson and “harassment”, continued

Since yesterday’s blog post, the picture supplied by PC Simon Harwood’s solicitors has been published in the mainstream media – well, The Sun and the Telegraph. Both reports – unlike the BBC’s recent articles – even refer to Harwood beating Mr Tomlinson with a club rather than just pushing him to the ground.

But no mention so far of the ‘not for publication’ letter to which the photograph was attached (reproduced above).

As Kevin at Random Blowe blog puts it:

Now personally, I’m not interested in what Harwood has to say about anything unless it is in the dock and in front of a jury. Equally, anything that prevents his lawyers from trying to argue in future that a fair trial is impossible, because of intense interest from newspapers more interested in headlines than justice, has to be good. After all, there still remains a realsitic possibility that the DPP’s decision may be subject to legal challenge and that Harwood may yet have to account for his actions in court.

But given how shocking this case is, it is still important to be able to put a face to the name. Anonymity granted to police officers normally extends far beyond what ordinary members of the public can ever expect – not unlike the kind of different treatment routinely granted to policce whenever they are accused of causing someone’s death.

What Simon Harwood did had terrible consequences, and clearly his culpability needs to be judged, as would the actions of any member of the public in similar circumstances.

Indeed, we know – our common sense screams it at us – that had the roles been reversed, and it had been Ian Tomlinson who beat Simon Harwood from behind with a club after his friend set a vicious dog on him, and then shoved him hard to the ground, and then walked off, all whilst wearing a ski-mask, then Harwood’s family would not be rending their garments in public over the failure to prosecute.

So the attempt by Harwood’s solicitors to stamp on any coverage of their client. There is a genuine public interest in this, and no amount of whining or ‘Not For Publication’ letters is going to stop that.

But equally the buck does not stop with PC Simon Harwood. In many respects he was doing exactly what he should have been. He was an experienced Territorial Support Group officer. He had been selected for the TSG because of his aggression and willingness to use physical force. During Glencoe, the G20 policing operation, TSG units were clearly deployed by senior officers to control space and people, not to prevent crime or maintain order; Simon Harwood was there not as a warranted peace officer, but as an anonymous paramilitary footsoldier.

Nor were these ‘inexperienced junior officers panicking under pressure on the frontline’ as was the line fed to the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons – these were experienced full-time public order specialists (TSG), backed up by volunteer reservists (Level 2s), directed by officers who spend their time surveilling and monitoring political protests (Forward Intelligence Teams), and under the on-the-ground supervision of a formal public order policing hierarchy (such as the Bronze Commander).

Simon Harwood should pay for his actions.

But so too should Commander Bob Broadhurst (Metropolitan Police), who was in overall control of the G20 policing.

So too should Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson (City of London Police), operational commander on the ground, witness to and possibly the one who ordered the assault on Ian Tomlinson.

So too should Chief Inspector Peter Mills (Sussex Police), another senior police officer with a long background in policing protests who was present at or in the near vicinity of the Tomlinson assault.

So too should PC Alan Palfrey (Metropolitan Police), Forward Intelligence Team officer who was a direct witness to the assault on Ian Tomlinson, who would have known Mr Tomlinson was not even a protester, but who did nothing to help him, and who did not make a statement about the incident until after he was named by non-police officers. So too should PC Palfrey’s FIT colleague PC Steve Discombe.

So too should the many other police officers who were witness to, who covered up, or who were complicit with, the assault on Ian Tomlinson.

And no number of solicitors’ letters from any one of them shall stem the public interest in, or the public anger at, the killing of Ian Tomlinson.

» Letter from PC Simon Harwood’s solicitors (684 kb PDF)

PC Simon Harwood, the death of Ian Tomlinson, and “harassment”

So PC Simon Harwood – the police officer not charged in connection with the death of Ian Tomlinson – has apparently got his lawyers to complain to the media that he feels he’s being hounded.

It seems they believe that there is “no legitimate purpose in approaching PC Harwood for further comment.”

I’m sure the Tomlinson family will have a lot of sympathy for him and his predicament.

On the acquittal of G20 assault cop Sergeant Delroy Smellie: Message received and understood

So Sergeant Delroy Smellie of the Metropolitan Police Territorial Support Group, captured on film backhanding then beating with a metal truncheon protester Nicola Fisher at last year’s G20 demonstrations in London has beaten the rap.

We all have District Judge Daphne Wickham to thank for ensuring that this whole mess was tidied up ahead of tomorrow’s one year anniversary of the death at police hands of unarmed bystander Ian Tomlinson.

Transcript of Newsnight discussion about the TSG and policing of G20, 7/7/9

On BBC2’s Newsnight yesterday there was an interesting report by Richard Watson looking at the involvement of the Territorial Support Group (TSG) in the policing of the G20 protests in light of the high level of complaints against its officers and the HMIC’s report, which came out on Monday.

There then followed a studio discussion about the points raised, which was all the more interesting for the involvement of Keith Vaz MP, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, which published its own report into the policing of the G20 protests a week earlier.

Neither the HMIC nor the HAC reports dwelt on the involvement of TSG officers in much of the most violent incidents, such as the fatal assault on Ian Tomlinson by a TSG constable (who had apparently resigned from the police previously over allegations of violence, before rejoining with no investigation), the ‘Fisher hitter’ TSG sergeant, or the violent clearance of the peaceful Climate Camp by massed ranks of the TSG.

Indeed, in the Newsnight discussion it quickly becomes apparent that Keith Vaz does not seem to have realised that the highly experienced, well-trained public order specialists of the TSG had been on the frontline throughout the policing of G20. Lest we forget, his Committee found that ‘inexperienced’ and ‘untrained’ officers on the frontline had been a major contributing factor of the many problems.

I find his lack of awareness regarding the involvement and presence on the frontline at G20 of the TSG rather astounding. On the day the HAC report came out, I wrote to Keith Vaz with my concerns that his Committee’s report appeared to overlook the integral involvement of specialist units such as the TSG, the Forward Intelligence Teams, and the City of London Police dog units at each of the most controversial contact points. I also pointed out that the commanding officers both on the ground and directing the operation from headquarters were experienced in public order matters, and named them.

The next day I received a reply from a representative of the HAC which expressed the view that the Committee had not been able to comment specifically on matters which may be subject to court proceedings. However, it was clearly stated that the Committee might further look into specialist police units such as these in the future.

So, can we expect Commander Bob Broadhurst and other senior Met officers to be dragged back before the Committee to explain just why they gave such a plainly inaccurate picture? Only time will tell.

In the meantime, in case you missed Newsnight, you can (if you are in the UK) still catch it on the iPlayer until late next Tuesday night (the segment begins at around 14mins into the programme).

The audio of the report on the TSG and subsequent studio discussion is also available here. A full transcript of the studio discussion (which begins at around 6mins45s into the audio clip) is below.

Transcript of Newsnight studio discussion on TSG, 7/7/9

  • EM = Emily Maitlis, Newsnight presenter hosting the discussion
  • BP = Brian Paddick, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police, and onetime LibDem candidate for London Mayor
  • JJ = Jenny Jones MLA, Green Party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority
  • KV = Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee

EM: Now joining me in the studio Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Met; Jenny Jones, who’s a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority; the MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which also recently released a report into G20 policing, welcome to all, thanks for coming.

Brian Paddick, you were in charge of south east Territorial Support Group in your time, does what you’ve heard here this evening surprise you?

BP: Well, it’s a great concern of mine because it appears to be history repeating itself. The Special Patrol Group, the predecessor of the Territorial Support Group, which was disbanded when Blair Peach was killed in a demonstration in 1979, started out as a very professional outfit, they were the elite of the Metropolitan Police, and gradually the gang mentality took over, and in the end they had to be disbanded.

What I am very concerned about is the Territorial Support Group – again, the elite, um, took very great pride in their appearance, their fitness – could be showing signs of going the same way as the Special Patrol Group.

EM: But you think you know it wasn’t like this under your command? How well did you know it?

BP: It certainly wasn’t like that under my command, and I went out with the officers, on patrol, and it was a very different situation in those days. But the alarming thing is, one of the things that young man said, about being hit with the hat, one of the traditional TSG punishments amongst officers is a ‘hatting’, which is to hit a fellow officer with hats. So that story has a very sinister ring of truth about it.

EM: Jenny Jones, this didn’t just happen overnight, this doesn’t even reflect what happened in the G20…

JJ: I think that probably there is a much wider problem, I think the TSG has deep problems about the sort of robust policing they are trained for. But I think also, I’ve heard senior officers for example, say things like, they ‘differentiate between things like innocent people and protesters’, as if a protester cannot be an innocent person; now to me that suggests there is a deep thought process, and they can’t understand the real function of protest, and that it can be utterly peaceful.

EM: Keith Vaz, isn’t it extraordinary that we’ve had a whole report on the G20 and the policing of it, and barely a mention of this controversial group?

KV: Well, I’m very disappointed with what I’ve just seen on your programme. The fact is I think this is a very strong report, it’s very critical of certain aspects of what the police did during G20, and it very much echoes what we said in our select committee report a week ago.

But what we were told in evidence, that the people on the frontline were inexperienced and untrained officers, we were not told in our evidence, something that Brian has just told me, as we were going on this programme, that actually the Territorial Support Group are usually in the frontline as far as these protests are concerned…

EM: …But that was pretty obvious, that was pretty obvious from the footage we’ve seen in the last few months, why would you put inexperienced officers on the frontline?

KV: Well… It may be pretty obvious, but we can only produce reports on the basis of the evidence that we have received, and certainly the evidence that came to us, the evidence that was given to us in this inquiry, was that the people on the frontline were untrained and inexperienced, and basically that’s why we concluded that the police were pretty lucky in this instance…

BP: …The worrying point, Emily, is that the most senior, the most serious complaints that have been made, for example the ones regarding Ian Tomlinson, all involve Territorial Support Group officers, not the young inexperienced, untrained officers that the senior officers who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee say were to blame for losing control during that situation.

In my experience it is the experienced Territorial Support Group officers who are more likely to overstep the mark rather than beat officers who are drafted into that situation.

EM: I mean, you talk about overstepping the mark, look at that case study: A young man, picked up off the street, called a ‘fucking Paki’, slapped around… The police have recognised that this is a legitimate complaint…

KV: They have, and they should, it is totally unacceptable behaviour, even though in certain circumstances what the police do in terms of tactics they say is within their rulebook, it’s totally unacceptable behaviour for any individual to be beaten, or…

EM: …But why then, 137 outstanding complaints, we’re talking about one in three officers.

KV: …Well there shouldn’t be, and one of the problems that I think we’ve had is what G20 has spawned, quite rightly, is a number of complaints that cannot be dealt with in the timeframe, that’s why one of the recommendations we put forward, is that additional resources have to be given to the IPCC in order to be able to deal with these complaints. At the moment a third of the entire caseload of the IPCC is actually complaints against officers who were participating in the G20 protest.

EM: Jenny Jones, it does seem extraordinary that at this point we’re just talking about the process to handle complaints. Do we actually need the Territorial Support Group?

JJ: Well, as a Green I’d like to say ‘no, we don’t need them’, but in fact of course I think there will be times when you need that sort of very strong policing, because there are extreme incidents, but I think they are used too frequently, I think that the officers themselves are not rotated enough so they get out of what Brian calls this ‘gang culture’, and I think there could be better training about civil liberties. They’re clearly not doing their job properly.

BP: Let’s put some balance in here though, because these are allegations, they’re being investigated, these officers have not been convicted of any wrongdoing, and we have the word of one person, at the moment, who has made this complaint about their treatment at the hands of the Territorial Support Group, that investigation has not concluded yet.

The second thing to say is what Chris Allison said, which is Territorial Support Group officers quite often are put in the frontline, and so you would expect to some extent them to have more complaints, perhaps, than other officers who are not put into those very stressful situations.

EM: Alright, but let me put you back as, in charge, if you like… These are allegations and you have to deal, let’s imagine, with those allegations. What would you do now, from inside the Met? I mean a complete reshuffle, a complete retrain? Would you disperse them so there isn’t an elite force as such?

BP: Well, you need to have a highly mobile force ready to deal with either a spontaneous outbreak of disorder or to deal with, we’re on the anniversary of the seventh of July bombings, the Territorial Support Group was an extremely useful resource in that sort of situation.

But what you’ve got to make sure is that there’s rotation of those officers on a regular basis so that these cliques do not develop, that they don’t become a law unto themselves, which is the problem we had with the Special Patrol Group before.

EM: Keith Vaz, I come back to my previous point, neither in the report today nor in your report from the Home Affairs Select Committee did we hear any mention of the problems or the scale of the complaints against this force. Don’t you think that’s a pretty bad mess?

KV: It is a pretty bad mess, but you can only produce reports on the basis of evidence that has been given to you, and if a Select Committee is given evidence about the type of officers who were on duty during protests of this kind, we can only conclude on the evidence that we’ve got.

But don’t forget, Denis O’ Connor’s report is an interim report in any event, this was brought out relatively quickly, in order to ensure that some of the main points were dealt with.

But we will certainly return to this subject as a result of the consultations that we will have following the publication of this report. This isn’t the end of it, I think the debate about policing with consent of major events of this kind, which, frankly, this report very helpfully talks about, is something that we have to return to…

EM: Okay…

KV: What the G20 gives us is the opportunity to have that debate with the public.

EM: Jenny Jones, you’ve had that pledge here from Keith Vaz tonight, from the MPA’s perspective, what would you actually like to see in concrete terms?

JJ: Well, I think we have seen the start of a public debate which has not happened before, over many years I have complained about police tactics and mostly I’ve been ignored on the Police Authority, because people just haven’t believed them, we are now in a different era, when we’ve seen some very bad behaviour, the police, I think have got to change.

EM: Thank you very much indeed, thanks for joining me.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: Metropolitan Police officer ‘T3’

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: Metropolitan Police officer ‘T3’

Just because the media circus has for the most part rolled out to the next town in Sensationland does not mean we have forgotten that many police officers were witness to the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson on Wednesday 1st April 2009.

Today we turn our attention to the officer labelled throughout this series as ‘T3’.

Some points to note:

  • Definitely male
  • Rather ruddy face
  • 9 o’clock shadow/stubble
  • No numbers on epaulettes
  • No balaclava
  • Helmet chinstrap drawn tight
  • Black gloves
  • Right-handed baton grip
  • Hi-viz jacket opened at top, level with breast badge

Again, if you recognise this officer – one of at least eighteen who saw the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson, then please speak out.

If you took or have seen a photograph of this police officer elsewhere, please check to see if a shoulder number – or any other means of identification – is visible in that picture.

Ian Tomlinson, RIP. Dead, but not forgotten.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: Metropolitan Police officer ‘T2’

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: Metropolitan Police officer ‘T2’

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: Metropolitan Police officer ‘T2’

Continuing with our ‘G20 Police Witnesses IDed‘ project, here’s the Metropolitan Police officer we are currently labelling as ‘T2’ – thought to be a Level 2-trained borough officer.


  • Black balaclava pulled down to just below the nose
  • T-shaped black shield grip on riot shield
  • Right-handed grip on extendable baton
  • Black gloves
  • Shorter than other officers at the scene (possibly a female officer?)

Again, if you recognise this officer – one of at least eighteen who saw the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson, then please speak out.

If you took or have seen a photograph of this police officer elsewhere, please check to see if the shoulder number in that picture is clearer than here.

Ian Tomlinson, RIP. Dead, but not forgotten.

ETA (1/4/11):

The Tomlinson Inquest is now underway, and officer ‘T2’ has been identified as PC Kerry Smith, a van driver based in Fulham.

PC Smith gave evidence in which she said she was “shocked by the forcefulness of the push” which PC Simon Harwood unleashed upon Ian Tomlinson, causing him to fly head first into the pavement.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: Metropolitan Police officer ‘T1’

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: Metropolitan Police officer 'T1'

It has been a while since last I posted about the killing of Ian Tomlinson, but like many, I have not forgotten. Today I return to the venture of trying to identify the police officers present at the deadly assault on Mr Tomlinson at Royal Exchange Buildings in central London back on Wednesday 1st April 2009.

Here we have one of the three officers labeled in these blog posts with the letter T. Initially this was because by their dress – with riot helmets and riot shields, and balaclavas on some of them – and by the way they moved together, as a unit, in a manner which suggested drill training, it seemed possible that they were Territorial Support Group (TSG) officers. Indeed, it has subsequently transpired that the officer who actually assaulted Ian Tomlinson in this incident (labeled here as ‘A’) – an officer dressed in a similar fashion, though acting apart from the ‘T’ trio – is a TSG officer.

However, as a commenter on this blog pointed out, and as is reasonably clear from the pictures of officer ‘T1’ here, the ‘T’s shoulder numbers indicate that they are instead what is known as ‘Level 2’s. That is, they are not members of the TSG (a unit which is separate from the borough-based structure of the regular police, and given the shoulder number prefix ‘U’) but local officers used as a tactical reserve to the TSG in public order situations such as the G20 protests under the MAST scheme. They are trained in the same skills and tactics as the full-time TSG, but for four days per year instead of approximately ten days per year for TSG officers (source: Metropolitan Police website via Internet Archive). These Level 2 officers wear their normal shoulder numbers.

As can be seen from the pictures above, ‘T1’ appears to have a double character letter prefix on his epaulette, indicating that he is a borough officer, as well as a three digit number.

Other things to note about officer ‘T1’ include:

  • Black balaclava pulled down to just below the nose
  • Distinctive black button badge over right breast
  • ‘Oblong-over-octagon’ black shield grip on riot shield
  • Right-handed grip on ‘public order long baton’
  • Black gloves
  • Possibly green or blue eyes

If you recognise this officer – one of at least eighteen who saw the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson, then please speak out.

If you took or have seen a photograph of this police officer elsewhere (perhaps you recognise the badge), please check to see if the shoulder number in that picture is clearer than here.

Above all, please keep up the pressure, please do not forget, please do not let this be swept under the carpet. This is too important to simply leave in the hands of the IPCC, which has just announced that a police officer found wantonly altering notes on the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes will not face any charges.

By way of a postscript, the United Campaign Against Police Violence has been set up in response to the killing of Ian Tomlinson and others by the police, and it continues to keep the pressure up on the IPCC and the police.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: ‘D1’ positively identified as CP807

Witnesses to G20 Ian Tomlinson assault 1/4/9 (1)

Photographer Marcus Bensasson has come forward with some very good photographs from both Tuesday 31st March and Wednesday 1st April (the actual day of the G20 protests).

They clearly show that the City of London Police dog handler labelled here and elsewhere as ‘D1’ – a witness to the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson – bears the shoulder number CP807.

In Marcus’ own words:

I saw him the day before the G20 protests outside the Bank of England at around about 2.30pm. I was just passing by and was in the right place at the right time when a suspect package was found and the place was cordoned off while the bomb squad dealt with it. He was the first one to brief the press on what was going on.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: CP807 aka 'D1'

City of London Police dog handler CP807 (aka ‘D1’) at bomb scare on 31st March 2009 (cropped from picture by Marcus Bensasson)

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: CP807 aka 'D1'

City of London Police dog handler CP807 (aka ‘D1’) at bomb scare on 31st March 2009 (original picture by Marcus Bensasson)

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: CP807 aka 'D1'

City of London Police dog handler CP807 (aka ‘D1’) at bomb scare on 31st March 2009 (cropped from picture by Marcus Bensasson)

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: CP807 aka 'D1'

City of London Police dog handler CP807 (aka ‘D1’) at bomb scare on 31st March 2009 (original picture by Marcus Bensasson)

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: CP807 aka 'D1'

City of London Police dog handler CP807 (aka ‘D1’) at bomb scare on 31st March 2009 (cropped from picture by Marcus Bensasson)

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: CP807 aka 'D1'

City of London Police dog handler CP807 (aka ‘D1’) at bomb scare on 31st March 2009 (original picture by Marcus Bensasson)

Marcus continues:

I next saw him on April 1 on Leadenhall Street a little before 8.30pm, after the police had cleared protesters off Cornhill. Recognising him from the day before, I decided to take a picture. Then on April 8 when the Guardian published stills from the video of Tomlinson being assaulted I realised that it was the same guy. Seeing the pictures of him on your blog confirmed this to me.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: CP807 aka 'D1'

City of London Police dog handler CP807 (aka ‘D1’) at G20 protests on 1st April 2009 (lightened version of original picture by Marcus Bensasson)

You can see more of Marcus Bensasson’s photography from the G20 protests in his Cornhill Flickr set.

Many thanks to him (and the other photographers, witnesses, commenters and citizen investigators) for helping to shine a light on the circumstances of the death of Ian Tomlinson.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: ‘U3’

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: 'U3'

Witnesses to G20 Ian Tomlinson assault 1/4/9 (28)

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: 'U3'

U3 wears a hi-viz jacket, but seemingly no headgear. He can be briefly seen near U2 by the fountain as Ian Tomlinson staggers off.

As with U2, it is not clear whether U3 is a police officer, but he definitely seems to be standing within the cluster of police officers behind the fountain without suffering any harassment, unlike Ian Tomlinson.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: ‘U2’

G20 Police Witnesses IDed - 'U2'

Witnesses to G20 Ian Tomlinson assault 1/4/9 (28)

U2 wears no headgear and seems to be in a black or dark coloured jacket, boilersuit or similar. He appears to be balding or to have close-cropped hair. He stands near to F5 behind the fountain.

It is by no means clear that he is a police officer, but he definitely seems to be standing within the cluster of police officers behind the fountain without suffering any harassment, unlike Ian Tomlinson.

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: City of London Police officer ‘U1’

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: City of London Police officer 'U1'

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: City of London Police officer 'U1'

G20 Police Witnesses IDed: City of London Police officer 'U1'

Apologies for the delay between the previous post and this.

It seems that Channel 4 News is now very definitely on the case with regards to the missing police witnesses to the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson on 1st April.

Perhaps this officer might be able to help. He was present in the background during the incident which was closely followed by Ian Tomlinson’s death, lurking for the most part on the west side of Royal Exchange Buildings, behind the trio of Level 2 Met officers (‘T1’-‘T3’) and two suspected Forward Intelligence Team members (‘F3’ and ‘F4’).

Throughout he could be seen talking into or listening to the radio unit on the left side of his jacket collar. He could also be seen doing the same during the ‘photographer attack’ incident on Royal Exchange Buildings, when City of London officer 204 (aka ‘C1’) assaulted a snapper. It is from this incident that the clearer pictures of ‘U1’ (as captured by Colin McQuillen/TwoThumbsFresh*) are taken.

Officer U1 is clearly identifiable by his lack of headgear, his City of London hi-viz jacket (with red-and-white checkerboard), his silvery grey hair (parted to the left) and matching moustache, and the distinctive black patch or strap over his jacket’s right breast.

One thing which is a lot clearer in Colin’s photos than in the video is the detail on the epaulettes. Without being able to conclusively identify what is on them, the item towards the middle of the epaulette on his right shoulder looks too substantial to be letters, suggesting that it might be a pip or a crown. Two pips indicate an Inspector, a pip and a crown a Chief Superintendent.

In case you did not spot him in the original ‘American tourist’ footage or photographs of the Tomlinson assault, let’s refresh our memories:

Witnesses to G20 Ian Tomlinson assault 1/4/9 (13)

Witnesses to G20 Ian Tomlinson assault 1/4/9 (19)

Witnesses to G20 Ian Tomlinson assault 1/4/9 (28)

* Thanks again to Colin/2TF for sharing the pictures

‘G20: Another version of the truth’ – very important piecing together of Tomlinson death timeline – READ & DISTRIBUTE

On the day that ACPO boss Sir Sir Ken Jones has attempted to suggest that the G20 policing operation was ‘proportionate’, Last Hours has published a preliminary – but detailed – timeline of the events that led to the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson by an unidentified TSG officer whilst in the presence of (and possibly under the direction of) experienced police ‘public order specialists’.

This is an important attempt to get at the truth which the police appear to have tried to hide since the 1st April, and which the Independent Police Complaints Commission seems unable to uncover.

Please read, digest and redistribute widely.

Where crime is committed by those supposedly sworn to uphold it, it falls upon ordinary citizens to find justice.

Last Hours G20 timeline

Tomlinson assault cop directed by FIT?

It’s been taking a long time to wade through all the available material and make some kind of sense of it, so I’m a bit late going through the footage of the dog attack on Cornhill.

This took place around 7:16pm on 1st April, shortly before the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson, and which involved several of the City of London dog handlers (D3, for example) also present when Ian Tomlinson is put to the ground.

But one thing of note is the apparent presence of ‘A’, the officer who later batons and pushes Ian Tomlinson. See the following pictures from each incident, and make up your own mind whether they are the same officer:

G20 Tomlinson assault cop at earlier incident?

Ian Tomlinson's G20 assault

Some basic notes

After the moment captured in the screengrab from the ‘dog attack’ video, officer ‘A’ (if that’s who it is) exchanges looks (and possibly words) with the blue-flashed hi-vis jacket-wearing officers to right of screen (suspected FIT cops), before moving off into the cluster of cops around the corner of Threadneedle Street and Royal Exchange Buildings. Some of those officers head down Royal Exchange Buildings in the direction of Cornhill, before the videographer gets distracted by the big build up of riot police to his/her left, who then charge round the corner into Royal Exchange Avenue.

The general make-up of the group heading down Royal Exchange Building (as opposed to the surge into Royal Exchange Avenue) appears to match up with the beginning of the ‘American tourist’ video – some riot police with helmets and shields, the balaclava’d up shieldless left-handed officer, suspected FIT cops and dog handlers.

If one considers that the ‘dog attack’ incident to the north end of Royal Exchange Buildings and the Tomlinson assault to the south are connected by a number of police personnel and a short period of time (ie that some of those at the ‘dog attack’ then dash down the path to the location where Ian Tomlinson is then assaulted, all in a short space of time), then it would appear that the police officer who actually batons and pushes Mr Tomlinson talks to or takes some form of instruction from one or more police officers in the blue flashed hi-vis jackets before moving off from the ‘dog attack’ incident – as do other officers in the group we see in the assault footage. This might indicate, we may speculate, some level of command or control.

(This is, I note again, only speculation. Perhaps there were a number of left-handed baton-wielding riot cops with no epaulettes, high cut hi-vis jackets, balaclavas, trousers tucked into their boots, Nato helmets and no shields running around the Royal Exchange area of London between 7:16 and 7:20pm on the 1st of April. Hopefully they will all be making formal statements to account for their own actions and to bear witness to what they saw.)

As the evidence is assembled and analysed it may well be possible to piece together not just a chain of events, but the reasoning behind it, right down to who said what to whom at what point.

It will not be enough for one cop to face punishment for his actions, when his actions were but a side-effect of a tactic, a strategy, a doctrine, a policy. Responsibility lies in the fist gripped around a baton, but also in the command centres and briefing rooms.

NB: The times on the pictures above are approximate. The YouTube uploader of the ‘dog attack’ video states that they are unaware of whether the 7:16 timestamp refers to the beginning or end of the film. The moment pictured comes 1′32″ into the video.