What planet is he on?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/25/g20-smellie-fisher-assault-trial

The guy seems to be expecting credit for only using the back of his hand instead of his elbow. It doesn't even enter into his head using a non physical method of dealing with Ms Fisher.

"Asked about his suspension from duty last April, Smellie said he could not understand why he was not allowed to continue working. "It has been explained to me in a number of different ways but I still do not understand the reason for my suspension."

The man whinges on about being scared, to me he sounds paranoid and that frankly makes him dangerous in his line of work.

Lets not forget to point out that members of the group Smellie belongs to is voluntary. They choose to be there and perform those duties.

Am I missing some non disclosed danger here? Either from the little lady or those assembled to remember Ian Tomlinson, killed by the police the day before.

Oh and the pedant in me wonders why he is allowed to give a c/o address to the court. Can anyone do that?

Anyway, how this pans out will be interesting either way.

Remembering Ian

What follows is an email that I received from the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign. I have signed and intend to attend the memorial on the 1st.



Dear Friend,

We are writing to ask for your support. Ian Tomlinson died following an assault by police at the G20 protests on April 1st 2009. A year later his family are still awaiting a response from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as to whether anyone will be charged for the assault and death of Ian Tomlinson.

The Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign has drafted a letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions [head of the Crown Prosecution Service] to express concerns about their delay in reaching a decision. We are asking individuals and organisations to show their support by signing this.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could read the letter (which is both attached and also pasted below this email) and let us know if you would be willing to add your signature to it by replying to iantomlinsonfamilycampaign@googlemail.com

Please indicate if you are signing on behalf of an organisation or in a personal capacity and reply as soon as possible, no later than 5pm on Tuesday the 30th of March. The letter will delivered to the CPS on the 1st of April and circulated to the media.

Additionally we would like to invite you to join the Tomlinson family in remembering Ian on the anniversary of his death on Thursday 1st April 2010,11.00am (assemble 10.45 am), Cornhill by Threadneedle Street, London, EC3V. The family will be holding a minute's silence, saying a few words and laying flowers at the spot where Ian died.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this email please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you

Estelle du Boulay [Newham Monitoring Project - 0208 470 8333]

on behalf of The Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign

www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk


------
LETTER FROM IAN TOMLINSON FAMILY CAMPAIGN

1st April 2010

To the Director of Public Prosecutions,

It has now been one year since the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests in the City of London on 1st April 2009.

Whilst we appreciate a fair and thorough investigation takes time, Ian’s grieving family has been left in limbo for a year waiting for a full explanation about the circumstances of Ian’s death. There is now very real concern as to whether the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) proposes to charge anyone in respect of the assault and death of Ian Tomlinson.

The CPS has been in possession of the provisional Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation findings since August 2009. We understand that these findings, at least in part will provide the basis for your decision on whether to prosecute anyone for Ian’s death. We also note that you, the Director of Public Prosecutions, went on public record in a Guardian interview on September 21st 2009 to say you hoped the CPS would reach a decision “within a few months”.

Delays in the investigation and charging decisions increase the suffering for families of victims leaving them unable to gain closure and move on with their lives. Families are greatly concerned not to prejudice the process and are therefore effectively silenced from expressing their views publicly about the death of their loved one. They are desperate to ensure any potential future legal proceedings are not undermined nor an excuse found to abandon any cases that might be brought. The Tomlinson family has endured a year of public scrutiny unable to respond to questions about Ian’s death, with little they can do but wait for the outcome of your decision. The delay however is now intolerable.

The policing of the G20 protest caused widespread public concern around use of excessive force by police officers. Proceedings against many protestors arrested on the day, as well as a number of reviews and investigations into the events of the day, have all been concluded. In the case of Ian Tomlinson, there is a heightened need for the statutory investigating body to be seen to be carrying out justice in a robust, transparent and timely manner to address public confidence. One year later the public, like the Tomlinson family, are still left with unanswered questions about how and why Ian died at the G20.

In the absence of any updates from the CPS, we have growing concerns about the investigation into Ian's death. There has been a complete lack of communication and transparency about the delay into concluding the investigation into Ian Tomlinson’s death that calls the CPS' credibility into question.

As we have already set out we do not wish to prejudice any investigation or potential proceedings but believe that either a decision or public explanation is due. We call on the CPS to fulfill its public duty regarding the investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson and respond to this letter immediately.

Signed

Smellie in front of the court.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/22/policeman-g20-protester-baton-court



Policeman who hit G20 protester with baton mistook drink carton for weapon, court hears

Footage of demonstration in City of London shown at packed court, where sergeant says he 'acted in self-defence'

* Paul Lewis and Matthew Taylor
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 March 2010 23.01 GMT
* Article history

Sergeant Delroy Smellie

Sergeant Delroy Smellie has gone on trial accused of common assault by beating. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

A police sergeant twice struck a female G20 protester with a metal baton in what he said was "self-defence" after mistaking a carton of orange juice in her hand for a weapon, a court heard today.

Delroy Smellie, 47, a sergeant in the Metropolitan police, said he lashed out at Nicola Fisher, 36, in a "pre-emptive strike" during a confrontation outside the Bank of England on 2 April last year.

Smellie, a member of the Met's elite Territorial Support Group (TSG), went on trial accused of common assault by beating. He denies the charge, and his lawyers said they would argue he was seeking to defend himself and his colleagues.

The trial opened at a packed City of Westminster magistrates court and was shown video footage of the moment he slapped Fisher across the face before drawing his baton and striking her twice. Smellie showed no emotion as the footage played. The incident occurred during a memorial vigil for Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who had died the previous day after being attacked by another Met officer, also from the TSG.

Opening the case, Nicholas Paul, prosecuting, said Smellie had "lost his self control" during an "excessive and unjustified" attack on Fisher. "He went from level one to level five without considering the intervening steps," said Paul.

Paul showed district judge Daphne Wickham, who is trying the case without a jury, CCTV footage of the police operation and amateur footage of the clash between Smellie and Fisher that was posted on YouTube and handed to the Guardian.

He described the video as the core of the case against Smellie. The court also heard extracts of two interviews between Smellie and officials from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

The judge heard how Smellie told investigators that, after back-handing Fisher, he reached for his baton after noticing Fisher was holding an object.

The prosecutor said: "She had weapons in her hand and he perceived her as a threat." Fisher was in fact carrying an open carton of orange juice, which sprayed over Smellie when he hit her, the court heard.

The prosecutor said Fisher may have been aggressive, but Smellie's actions could not be justified. "Even if her behaviour was irritating and provocative when she was standing in front of Sergeant Smellie, it is plain from the footage and photographs … not in any way [was she] seeking to get involved in an attack.

Footage shown to the court started from around 2:30pm on 1 April, when TSG officers arrived near Royal Exchange to replace officers from City of London police, who had formed a cordon around protesters.

Paul said the "attitude and atmosphere" created by police changed upon the arrival of the TSG.

"There had been reports of people masking up and the unit to which Sgt Smellie was in charge was briefed to contain people within a cordon to prevent a breach of the peace and any other disorder such as had happened the day before," Paul said. "It was these instructions that informed Sgt Smellie's approach to the demonstrators that they dealt with."

The footage showed how moments before the alleged assault a demonstrator attempting to leave the cordon was pushed back by police, prompting an angry response from the crowd.

Fisher approached Smellie before being pushed away. As she moved back towards the officer, the footage showed him strike her with the back of his hand in what the court heard was a legal "clearance-swipe". But as Fisher began shouting "you hit a fucking woman" and moving towards him again, he took out his baton and hit her twice on the legs. The prosecutor said it was these final two blows that were at the centre of the case.

Earlier in proceedings, Wickham refused an application from the defence to get the case thrown out after the alleged victim – Fisher – did not turn up for the first day of the hearing.

Fisher, who had been due to give evidence, was described by the judge in pre-trial argument as having recently been "nervous, weary [and] unsure of whether the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] is part of the police".

Paul also indicated she may be fearful of the press coverage the trial would receive. From the defence, the court also heard Fisher may be suffering from depression.

While allowing the trial to proceed, Wickham refused, in the absence of Fisher, to accept as evidence a statement she provided to the IPCC on 16 April. The court heard Fisher, from Brighton, had been represented by Max Clifford and sold her story to a national newspaper.

A witness, photography student Beth Wilson, told the court she saw him "use his baton with force". "She didn't appear to be a physical threat to him," she said.

The trial is expected to last four days.

I hope this guy sues.

This guy is so couragous.

Clearly the Police officers involved were upset by him excercising his rights.

Yet again, another example of them overstepping their authority and punishing the man for not submitting to their 'authoriteye!' (You have to imagine that said in a Cartman style.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

However, This a clear example of how video footage give an insight into the situation.

If this man had not had video footage, do you think that he would have been released without charge?

I had a flight of fancy that someone might post a link of an officer being helpful and non intrusive after a stop such as this. I promise to post footage should I ever come across it and invite anyone reading to comment with a link if they find beforehand.

Deaths in Custody - Statistics

Inspired by my visit to Brixton Police Station, I got to wondering about a league table with regard to deaths in custody.

So I have made around 30 Freedom of information requests (Using www.whatdotheyknow.com ) to the police forces in England and asked them to provide the following information:

1) How many deaths in custody have occurred in the last 5 years?

2) Which station was responsible for each person who died? (Eg. Bromley: X deaths. Brixton: Y deaths. Etc.)

3) How many members of the public are served by the police stations where deaths occurred?

I am hoping that by dividing the number of people a station is responsible by the number of deaths in custody, I will be able to give each one a rating. This will mean that I can target those with unusually high ratings for campaigns.

Armed with this information, residents who live in the catchment area of the stations in question can ask their MP's to investigate on their behalf using www.theyworkforyou.com

You can tell that I am inspired by the accountability that is standard in the education system and I am even trying to work out how I can do a colour coded map of England to show these results.

I would like to point out that I understand that due to the nature of the job, there are likely to be deaths that are not suspicious. However, I do await the data with interest to see if my suspicions are justified.

I went to Brixton...

I went to Brixton this half term for a music event which meant that I was at a loose end for several hours a day.

I had no idea where I was when I took this picture through the window of my car.

It turned out that I was outside the infamous Brixton Police Station.

I think that there should be one of these outside every police station where an unexplained death has occured. It certainly had a strong emotional response from me and would serve not only to remember those who have died or suffered abuse, it would raise awareness.

I am considering getting a waterproof WNOW logo to add to this and maybe look up the legality of posting more.

Anyway, more photos...

Just a mile down the road.

This sounds very familiar and only a mile or so down the road.

They saw 'scum' in this family. I see another family who would not help the police if they were on fire.

How do they expect to police by consent when they so clearly alienate people based on prejudices?

Unless this incident is the direction modern policing is going in deliberately.

http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk/content/bromley/times/newnews/story.aspx?brand=BMLYTOnline&category=news&tBrand=bmlytonline&tCategory=znews&itemid=WeED10%20Feb%202010%2014%3A10%3A41%3A693