Frog I would suggest you read my posts again. If you wish to quote me then respond to something else I would suggest you ask a friend to help you quote the correct post.

i-baster wrote: i-baster wrote:
***Frog wrote: ***
Hope that helps.

How did you get all that from me pointing out the length of the video? I would again suggest you read the rest of my posts.

You could also say that summits or riots can bring on unfortunate incidents such as these.

If you have a place where there is public disorder it can be difficult to assess what is going on.

i-baster wrote:
Humm I read your posts in the thread clearly you seem to be unable to make the connection of follow the flow of the discussion or something.
Frog wrote:
The response was directly related to your input in the thread up to this point. The sentence below was written by you in this thread unless you're claiming you never wrote that line.

That line is incorrect for several reasons which is how as you say I 'come to all that'. Ian Tomlinson wasn't pushed he was beaten to the ground. The video is the whole incident in relation to the attack on Ian Tomlinson by PC Simon Harwood. In the video of the attack Ian is clearly seen walking away from the Police with his hands in his pockets as he heads home from work. We can also clearly see that he is not presenting a danger to anyone and isn't acting in an aggressive manor.

Anything there you would like to correct?

Next we see PC Simon Harwood rush up behind Ian who he strikes from behind causing him to fall to the ground.

Anything there you would like to correct?

Please explain which part of the attack isn't covered in the footage. The discussion isn't about the G20 protests it's about a very specific event which is clearly evidenced on video tape from start to finish. Your line "Also worth pointing out that the video of Tomlinson being pushed over is not the whole incident." seems to be claiming that there is more off camera action which some how justifies a PC attacking and unarmed passive civilian from behind. I can't see any justification but I'm happy to see how you rationalise it.
You're directing people to the 'mr Veitch' site to hear his version of events. No problem with that! Now the video in the OP clearly shows CV providing an ad hominem attack on Ian Tomlinson. The age, tattoos or smell etc. of Mr Tomlinson is relevant how exactly? Fallacy! Now we need to think about good old CV as he has flagged up that he is less than honest or impartial. What do you think the odds are that CV was at any point leading up to the attack on Ian close enough to him to smell his breath or in fact determine anything about Ian? Also consider that Ian wasn't a protester he was a guy on his way home from work. So again what are the odds that CV actually got to smell his breath? Regardless of the fact it's as equally irrelevant as the other points CV made against Ian's character!

Did you see the police charging forward at all during the incident? Humm I missed that even on replay I see no evidence supporting that. Which would suggest that not only was CV viewing from an awkward angle but also a different moment in time. He isn't a credible witness. IMHO

The antics of CV since that video was taken has demonstrated that credibility is something he has very little of if any at all.

The video in the OP clearly establishes that CV is liberal with the truth and also willing to be misleading. All of which would leave the average person drawing the conclusion that CV isn't a reliable witness and is actually rather dishonest etc.
That's how I put my post together, which is probably along similar lines to how many other people put shit together.

There is nothing stopping you correcting all the errors I have made!

Well I don't see anybody else having as much trouble as you appear to be having. My words and your words are totally different words. If anybody else has issues with what I have said or wishes for me to clear anything up let me know.

i-baster wrote:
I think I need clarification on how exactly you think a discussion works. What is a discussion in your view i-baster?

Yes that's right our words are different. I have given clarification to you twice, crossed T's and dotted I's - hoops have been jumped through.

Why would any sane individual expect everyone to agree with them on all issues all of the time?

Now as you seem to have issues with the information I have added to the thread maybe you would like to establish which parts you don't agree with.

Veitch is for whatever reason, being a total wanker on this.

I said anybody else.

i-baster wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting Veitch has a point in regards to this story?

i-baster wrote:
You said...
i-baster wrote:
I'm not having ab trouble I have quoted the relevant parts of your posts and then repeatedly explained how my posts have been thought through. I have explicitly asked for your corrections on several places which have gone ignored by you, which would indicate that no corrections are required. Now that would give the impression that we are in agreement on those facts and issues.

Mystified maybe...having trouble absolutely not!

I'm glad this thread has come up, as while I pay absolutely no attention to Mr. Veitch whatsoever, I knew nothing about the brutal and completely unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson. There is an article talking about this here, and I think we should remember what we have learned institutionally about the police in relation to the Hillsborough disaster very recently:

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news...ilys-outrage-1329241
The bolded part would really put to bed the idea that the police officer acted proportionately, or that Veitch's very confident account of the events was remotely accurate.

This whole episode is disgusting at every turn!

We have video evidence of the criminal attack on a civilian by an on duty police officer!
We have other police officers witnessing the crime, who didn't step forward and do their job by arresting the criminal attacker!
We have evidence that Harwood is an aggressive police officer with notes on his record supporting that!
It took days before Harwood came forward!
None of Harwoods fellow officers or commanding officers identified him leaving him to present himself! Aiding and abetting?
False autopsy report!
False eye witness statements on the BBC given by CV who is now known to be a very dubious character.
Court appearances being dragged out and delayed again and again benefiting Harwood!
Harwood retains his pension because no criminal conviction has been be brought against him...despite the fact there are police witnesses and clear video evidence of the attack. This clearly demonstrates that the courts are incompetent and/or totally corrupt! Offending police officers along with bankers, politicians, members of the media and legal professions etc. are protected by the state and their court systems - effectively endorsing criminal activity as legitimate perk of the job!

The list goes on...

Frog wrote:

91181 wrote:
Reporter: ..... So can you tell me what you saw?

CV: Yeah, I think in any confrontation truth is the first casualty, and I just want to clarify the reports I saw from this morning. He was not in his mid thirties. He was a gentleman that seemed to be over fifty. He was riddled with tattoos and from the smell of him, he'd been drinking all day and his eyes were very wide as if he was under the influence of drugs.

Reporter: What about the action of the police?

CV: The police were ...

Reporter: We can't speculate about the condition of the gentleman, but what is at issue here is the way the police handled it.

CV: I think, I came along at half past six last night and the police seemed to be acting very professionally. There was no overkill, no beatings, and the only reason this gentleman collapsed is because the police ran forward maybe twenty metres at a time, and then he ran off as well.and I saw him collapse and smash his head and then he was lying there with his eyes wide open, and then a guy in the audience had a megaphone and shouted police we need a medic, and within seconds the police had a team of around eight people ran forward, and yeah there were a couple of people throwing bottles and bricks, but there were a few other anarchists saying, no, stop this, stop this, time out, time out, so within seconds there were no more missiles. So the police were with him for a good two or three minutes before they dragged him back, but as they were dragging him back, then the missiles started again.

Reporter: Just to clarify, were you taking part in the protest? What were you doing there?

CV: I'm a city worker, I was there out of interest, out of curiosity, yeah.

Reporter: Okay, thank you very much .....

G'day.

There appears to be some confusion in relationship to what Charlie Veitch claimed took place in relationship to Ian Tomlinson. The above text is a transcription of the 'interview' with Charlie Veitch as an "eyewitness" (though it appear his eyewitness status didn't extend to him being a witness in court proceedings).

As can be seen from the video below that Feather kindly posted about the incident, Charlie Veitch doesn't appear to get anything right in the version he gave to the reporter.

For all intents and purposes, it appears CV made a deliberate character assassination of Ian Tomlinson. For instance, if you look at the video below, Ian Tomlinson has his body covered with clothing, only exposing his face and hands, so how could CV possible know that Ian Tomlinson was "riddled with tattoos" ?

The opening piece from CV in response to the reporter is predominantly hearsay. He couldn't possibly know if Ian Tomlinson had "been drinking all day" or not. That alone is complete conjecture on CV's part, uttered as some form of jusgment on Ian Tomlinson.

As is the comment, "his eyes were very wide as if he was under the influence of drugs", unless CV is claiming that he was close enough to see Ian Tomlinson's pupils, which from the video below I don't see CV in it from any of the angles presented. Specifically, he is in no way then able to determine the dilation of Ian Tomlinson's pupils.

Obviously his commentary is a character assassination.

The rest of it, CV's 'description' of the incident, bears absolutely no resemblance to what can be seen in the video below. For whatever purpose, Charlie Veitch lied about what took place.
feather wrote:

psketti wrote:
Post number #13 on this topic sums my view up. Like I said the police are clearly at fault in terms of pushing him. The question here though appears to be the witness. Yes he makes some statements about Ian Tomlinson that are not appropriate but as far as what happened we have to look at things like this without bias based on a mans views about 911.

This video has slow motion footage of the attack on Ian Tomlinson by PC Simon Harwood.

One man died as a result of this and one man lost his job and retained his pension. The British Justice system is so corrupt that even when indisputable clear video evidence is available and there are several police eye witnesses, a criminal charge can't be brought against the attacker! Why are the police free to commit criminal acts? Why does the Justice system repeatedly fail to convict officers involved in criminal or negligent activity? Who are the courts and police really protecting? Who or what would have the power to protect a known violent police officer, who has been filmed attacking an innocent civilian, who later died as a result of the attack? Who pulls the real strings of power in the UK?

Frog wrote:
I'd like to add something to the bold bit. Iirc what initially happened was nothing. Then the video emerged on the web. At this point harwood spoke to his supervisor and said "i think that's me in the video". The reply was "no it isn't" the supervising plod bastard appears to have sought to continue the whitewash at this point. Iirc he went on to advise harwood to keep schtum. This is not posted to in any way detract from harwoods initial guilt nor his disgusting attempts to get away with it. Rather to show just how early the cover up started. Harwoods immediate supervisor did what he could to sweep it under the carpet right from the off. Fucking disgusting.

i-baster wrote:
CV: I think, I came along at half past six last night and the police seemed to be act­ing very pro­fes­sion­ally. There was no overkill, no beat­ings, and the only rea­son this gen­tle­man col­lapsed is because the police ran for­ward maybe twenty metres at a time, and then he ran off as well.and I saw him col­lapse and smash his head and then he was lying there with his eyes wide open, and then a guy in the audi­ence had a mega­phone and shouted police we need a medic, and within sec­onds the police had a team of around eight peo­ple ran for­ward, and yeah there were a cou­ple of peo­ple throw­ing bot­tles and bricks, but there were a few other anar­chists say­ing, no, stop this, stop this, time out, time out, so within sec­onds there were no more mis­siles. So the police were with him for a good two or three min­utes before they dragged him back, but as they were drag­ging him back, then the mis­siles started again.

G'day I-baster.

I totally agree that this has to be looked at without bias.

Does the above description match what takes place in the video ?

I didn't see "the police ran for­ward maybe twenty metres at a time".

I didn't see "then he [Ian Tomlinson] ran off as well.and I saw him col­lapse and smash his head and then he was lying there with his eyes wide open".

I didn't see "within sec­onds the police had a team of around eight peo­ple ran for­ward" to Ian Tomlinson.

I didn't see "peo­ple throw­ing bot­tles and bricks".

It appears, as I have stated, that Charlie Veitch lied about what took place, as the video footage shows.

Veitch is not describing the video. He is not necessarily seeing what we are seeing. Also as I stated before the video ends so how do we know what happens afterwards?

You can't say that the only things happening here are on video. Like I said the video is one place and time. Things happen outside of the time and space of the video.