Is it possible not feel cynical about the "accidental" death at the G20 protest? We suspected so. The BBC blackout; the sketchy bits of information; the later-to-be-retracted red herring ("police pelted as they were trying to help"), the "post mortem examination", the witnesses contradicting the police. Like with Jean Charles de Menezes and the false statements that referred to "a bulky jacket with wires sticking out", the "accidental" death of a man at the G20 demonstration reeks fishy.
Exactly like it took Soviet officials days or weeks to tell the truth after the Chernobyl disaster, in Britain too it's becoming routine for the truth to surface after a while. It took twenty four hours for the media to learn that a 47-year-old man called Ian Tomlinson had died. What's disturbing, however, is that more and more details contradicting the official version are slowly coming out.
Today the Observer is reporting allegations that Tomlinson may have actually been seriously manhandled or even violently pushed by the police, citing several witnesses who made an official statement to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
A LibDem MP is calling for a full inquest with a jury. The police have nothing to fear. Even in the off-chance they were found to have done something dodgy, the judge would probably order to call it 'an open verdict'.
No comments:
Post a Comment