This has only been up on youtube a few days dunno if you guys have seen it but it certainly explains alot about mr veitch , reminds me of the 911 reporters on the scene 5 minutes after the attacks..

Thanks for that video.

I applaud his usage of the word "anarchists".

And, if I never said before 91181...welcome.

Such a reliable eyewitness eh?

Was gonna say...I don't know how close he was to the events of that day, but it sounds very different to what I've seen in video footage so far.

Go figure.

Thanks for this video that shows how Charlie Veitch was at a protest once. Not sure what this was meant to prove exactly.

feather wrote:
Was this the same incident?

i-baster wrote: yup, G20 summit, London 2009.

And what do you disagree with exactly?

i-baster wrote:
I think his description of exactly how the man fell and what happened leading up to that is questionable, given what can clearly be seen in the vid.

As I alluded to before though, we don't know where he was standing and exactly what he could and couldn't see from that viewpoint. Although, he did seem quite sure about certain things, didn't he?

i-baster wrote: Veitch, verbatim from the video: "The only reason this gentleman collapsed was because the police ran forward, maybe 20 metres at a time and then he ran off as well and I saw him collapse and smash his head."

The police did not run forward, the victim was walking by slowly/drunk when one policeman smacked his legs from behind with a truncheon and pushed him over.

Having listened to it again, I don't think his description of Mr Tomlinson "collapsing" was entirely accurate, either.

So, at best he was mistaken. At worst, he was making stuff up, to what end we'll never know.

Also worth pointing out that the video of Tomlinson being pushed over is not the whole incident. I agree the police officer was at fault so don't get me wrong there.

He also pointed out that some anarchists were not throwing things which would appear odd if the video is claiming that Charlie is not genuinely a witness.

He did not necessarily see everything in the video. Perspective is an important issue. You do see Ian stumble along and you do see the police push forward and you do see him get up afterwards.

Hopefully I am not classed as an agent now. Just trying to offer another view.

I've nothing to add re your "agent" status.

No, all fair points. As I said, we don't know where he was and exactly what he could see from there.

I do find his description of Mr Tomlinson quite telling, however.

I am always in favour of objectivity i-baster and that includes taking into account viewing angles, etc.
He did offer up a confident summary though which did not reflect the actual incident. He preceded that with a character assassination of the victim which even the reporter steered him away from.

Anybody interested to read what mr Veitch has to say can visit cveitch.com since he made a blog about this video recently. I just found it.

i-baster wrote:
That is true.

Regardless of what that man is saying, I could listen to him talk for a good while neurotic and out of his mind he may be...
And Ab's, before you fly past him, I hear he's good in the sack

On his statements however little I caught of them while listening to his mouth move... he could have 1) been at a distance from a different angle (maybe from behind the police so it looked like more than one went up) or 2) he's just babbling so I can listen to him

i-baster wrote:
So lets see if I can get this right. You're saying that the video footage of PC Simon Harwood attacking Ian Thomlinson from behind - who is unarmed, has his hands in his pockets is acceptable because of what previous activity exactly? What could possibly have happened at any point that justifies the brutal attack seen in the video footage? Being a bit tipsy on the way home from work isn't a crime in this country as far as I knew. If it was then their are huge numbers of civilians who would be attacked from behind by police in this country every Friday night.

Everything that relates directly to the assault and subsequent death of Mr Ian Thomlinson is in the film of the attack. There is also footage establishing that Harwood was involved in other incidents in other locations near by.

Charlie is clearly not a reliable witness and given his performances since then he appears to be an extremely dishonest and deceitful individual imho. The video in the OP serves to endorse the fact that Carlie was, has or is part of an agenda.

As we have seen with Hillsborough a standard police tactic would appear to be to cast aspersions on the character of anybody they are being held responsible for injuring/killing, add to that C.V.s apparent ability to judge someone's political ideology just by observing their actions on a G20 demo and I think we begin to get an even clearer picture of what C.V 'Anarchist Leader' is/was all about.