Jump to content

Recommended Posts

just a pity there was no sound recording of what was said, it looks as though there were words being exchanged between him and the officer(s) to his right as he walks, be nice to know what that was, and would also be nice to see what went on in the seconds before the filming actually started. the bloke,s dead and yet again its a clear case of police brutality in the eyes of the world, but somehow i think theres a wee bit more to it than what meets the eye. he certainly looks unsteady enough on his feet before the push, so was he drunk and remonstrating, even threatening, in which case the response of the police could be seen to proportionate and justifiable and that what happened afterwards was just sheer misfortune. on the other hand may be he was entirely innocent in which case the police response was not acceptable.

JSW:


There is thousands of hours of CCTV coverage from across all points in the City.


There is hundreds of hours of footage from the polices own dedicated 'video teams' the so-called Metropolitan Police Forward Intelligence Team.


And yet, and yet... nothing from the police to indicate the guy had done anything at all, and not a peep out of the police to suggest that he might have committed any offence of any description.


There is certainly more here that meets the eye: like the police behaviour and their subsequent claims.

Tomlinson left work at around 7, according to his work colleague, from south of King William Street.

By 7.15 he'd been hit at least once by a riot officer and was on the ground, in Royal Exchange Passage.

Having already passed two police cordons and been turned away at one.


JSW, he doesn't seem to have had time to have a drink. If he was wobbly on his feet, that could be for all sorts of reasons (feeling/being unwell etc. etc.)


Very sensible to be conducting a second post mortem.

just seen the video on the news, the guy clearly wraps him very hard round the back of the legs from behind with a big baton then assaults him again by shoving him really hard to the ground again from behind, manslaughter without a doubt. In the footage he can been seen walking quickly away and then talking to a superior officer, so the met knew from the beginning.


Amazing how the BBC seem to have mislaid all their footage and it was C4 who managed to obtain footage of him being clearly battoned around the back of the legs. But then again the BBC were basically told to ignore the G20 protests and focus on making gordon look good so he could rally the FTSE, its a war effort you know...........astounding !!!!


They were all over the story in Genoa carping on about how it would never happen in the uk or surbiton....no our lot will go all primal and beat and old guy to death from behind, then deny they touched him.

Embarrassing CCTV may have already been wiped. Participating officers would have already collaborated on their stories. If the fund manager hadn't filmed the incident, the Police would probably have stuck to their original denial. I doubt whether anyone will be prosecuted in this case. Even if someone is, the trial is likely to be halted before the matter is left to a jury. The truth rarely gets into the public domain in such cases.


The MET is very experienced at orchestrating cover ups.

The footage I saw sickens me.


An innocent man died. He may have had a pre disposed illness that may have brought on a heart attack but as the footage shows he was not acting in a way that would have in any circumstance made him a threat.

The fact that the police then, and after his death said that they were prevented from getting help for him has been proven as a lie.

The actual police officer?s have not come forward to say they were there and witnessed what happened.

They got caught on camera and that is the only reason that this has come to light (no CCTV oddly) would they have all huddled together? had this footage not come to light and stuck to a convenient and police pro story.

The police have a hard job at such demos but they acted as thugs and it seems to me that this particular officer acted in a particular and totally inappropriate manner. He wore a balaclava and thinks he is immune.

His colleagues as far as the last report have not come forward to report his behaviour at the time or since.

I do have respect for the police and the hard job that they do but from what I saw in two different sets of footage the Met have a long way to go in getting the trust of The Public.

The Family have a right to the answers. 47 is no age to die and in such a way it must be hard for the the family.

It doesn't seem to be consistent with a heart attack.


He was pushed from behind when his hands were in his pockets, and didn't seem to get them out in time to cushion the fall properly. He seemed to take a crack on the face/head as he rolled forward.


The medical student who first approached him said that he wasn't in pain, and he spoke for a few minutes before stopping responding.


It's more consistent with an internal head injury.


I'm not one to criticise police in general, as they're put under enormous pressure in violent and intimidating situations. However, this seems to be the action of a rogue lunatic who even had the temerity to adjust his balaclava after the event to ensure he couldn't be identified.


I trust that after the heat of the moment this lunatic's colleagues will recognise that it's in the best interests of their profession to weed out those who bring it into disrepute. This isn't a 'no grassing' thing.

I am wondering why, under any circumstances, it would be necessary or appropriate for an office on duty to cover his face... When on street duty one is a public figure and should be seen as such, there is (or should be) absolutely nothing to hide...


While on the march I do not recall seeing a single police office with a covered face, it was a coolish day but hardly arctic, so why was his face covered in the first place?


Can anyone explain... ???

I've just read that the police officer has come forward. There's also the suggestion that he'd removed his shuolder id number, as well as covering his face. Possibly the images in the video footage don't show the first time Mr Tomlinson was hit, which would explain why he appears unsteady on his feet. Truly shocking & sickening if it is as it appears. His poor family.

bawdy-nan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> video was shown several times on newsnight - BBC -

> last night


Yep - nothing wrong with the BBC coverage as far as I can tell. Let's stop with all this conspiracy nonsense!

yep sorry - problem with my PC - I thought JSW's message




was the last posted


Anyway, why is everyone still talking about this - don't you know you have been "encouraged" to talk about something a bit more mob-friendly?


Bob be Quick

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It doesn't seem to be consistent with a heart

> attack.

>

> He was pushed from behind when his hands were in

> his pockets, and didn't seem to get them out in

> time to cushion the fall properly. He seemed to

> take a crack on the face/head as he rolled

> forward.


The hands in pockets/heavy fall unbroken by arms to full effect, seems to be the case.


>

> The medical student who first approached him said

> that he wasn't in pain, and he spoke for a few

> minutes before stopping responding.

>

> It's more consistent with an internal head

> injury.


Second post mortem, asked for by family, sensible.


>

> I'm not one to criticise police in general, as

> they're put under enormous pressure in violent and

> intimidating situations. However, this seems to be

> the action of a rogue lunatic who even had the

> temerity to adjust his balaclava after the event

> to ensure he couldn't be identified.


He also removed his police number from the outside of his uniform, from what I'm seeing on some reports and photos.


I seem to recall police didn't use to wear balaclavas? Or perhaps balaclavas under riot headgear?

Or am I just being terribly old fashioned?

I mean, on a demo, what exactly is the purpose of a balaclava? Under riot (helmet) headgear? I can only think of one purpose.



>

> I trust that after the heat of the moment this

> lunatic's colleagues will recognise that it's in

> the best interests of their profession to weed out

> those who bring it into disrepute. This isn't a

> 'no grassing' thing.


As happened with Blair Peach. (Nobody owns up, nobody grasses on colleagues, nobody can be prosecuted.)


They now are contractually obliged to not cover up, as it were.

Is it surprising that coppers do this ?


the whole culture of copperdom is based on force and manipulation.


Of all the coppers I have met, not one would have been in radar of aquaintances, even if they were not coppers ( if you get what I mean ) - its takes a certain type of person to become a copper and this is hardly exceptional behavior for one of them.


Were they Met or City ?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blimey JSW, despots across the world would LOVE

> you!



i somehow doubt that, and i,ll comment no more on the subject, however it will all come out in the wash, wait and see.

I also think this jSW and my thoughts on the day were *AVOID* jump on the tube and FOH. I didn't want to be anywhere near there because the possibility of getting caught up in something was too high.


JetSetWilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> my view on the subject is that tomlinson is not an

> entirely innocent party in this, and it will all

> come out in the subsequent independent and ipcc

> enquiries.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...