In Pictures: Kinetica Art Fair
St Pancras...The LEGO Version
Diane Abbott Mulls Mayoral Bid
In Pictures: The Secret Bits Of Tower Bridge
The London Dossier: A Rough Guide To London, Circa 1967
Last week we witnessed some glaring discrepancies between certain newspaper reports on the G20 protests and the observations of many who were present at the demonstrations. While the Daily Mail was reporting the events with headlines claiming “… thousands of anti-capitalists ransack the City in G20 riot” (this headline has since been changed on the Daily Mail website), several of Londonist’s own eyewitnesses had noticed that the protests were, despite a handful of isolated incidents, mostly quite peaceful and good-natured - a fact acknowledged at the time by a Metropolitan Police spokesman.
Similarly, many newspapers initially reported that the police paramedics who were attempting to revive Ian Tomlinson (the man who collapsed and died during the protests) were “pelted with bottles by a screaming mob”, despite the rapidly emerging eyewitness claims that such reports were a massive distortion of the facts.
And now additional claims have been made about the circumstances surrounding Ian Tomlinson’s death. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has received a number of witness statements claiming that Mr Tomlinson was ‘assaulted’ by riot police as he attempted to make his way home from work at a nearby newsagents. It is reported that he was ‘rushed from behind’ by police officers, resulting in him falling heavily to the ground and hitting his head on the pavement. He was then apparently helped to his feet by another bystander, but was seemingly disorientated and collapsed a few minutes later.
As more details of the exact circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson’s death emerge, there are increasing demands for a full investigation into the events. Protesters marched to Bethnal Green police station on Saturday to demand a public inquiry, and Liberal Democrat MP David Howarth has said: "Eventually there will have to be a full inquest with a jury. It is a possibility this death was at police hands."
With such wildly differing information being reported by the press and eyewitnesses, it is obviously difficult to know what to believe about what really happened at the G20 protests. However it’s looking less and less likely that Ian Tomlinson, a bystander who was not taking part in the protests, died from the ‘natural causes’ that were originally claimed by the police post mortem.
Picture taken from Kashlick’s Flickr photostream under the Creative Commons Attribution licence.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The reporting of the G20 protests in the popular press has been nothing short of obscene.
Look for example at the Evening Standard website's reporting of this story. Originally they reported that the police medics helping this poor guy were "pelted with bricks", as you can see from the URL which will still take you to the report: "Police pelted with bricks as they help dying man during G20 protests".
However the report has been changed at least twice since it was posted. First it was changed to "pelted with bottles", and now it says "just a few plastic bottles were thrown by people further back in the crowd who did not realise what was happening", and if you search for this article on the site you'll notice the URL has been updated to the rather less hatefully fantastical "Ring of steel keeps demos away from world leaders".
How are paid journalists allowed to spread these lies without losing their jobs, and their reputations as newspeople?
Why is the Times website page that reports this story ("Man who died during G20 protest was walking home from work") headed with a video of the attacks on the RBS branch which happened 2 streets away and about 7 hours earlier? Is it because it was the only genuine protester-led violence the police managed to engineer during the whole protest.
Sick! A man died and it may have been at the hands of the violent barbaric thugs whose job it is to protect him! And all the media can do is distort the truth in the opposite direction.
Max, I completely agree with you.
It's bad enough that the state seems to be attempting to criminalise the very act of protest (or at least discourage it), but it's hugely disappointing that some of the press are intent on distorting the facts of the protest so heavily.
The worrying thing here is that most people, worldwide, have to rely on the press for information about what happened. In the absence of reliable reporting of the events, it's inevitable that people will believe the only reports available to them. When the press starts reporting outright lies, what hope is there of the truth about any controversial event emerging?
So much for journalistic integrity.
I've no idea what the Evening Standard's original headline was, but that URL is no proof of anything... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23670349-details/Innocent+man+killed+by+police+in+unprovoked+attack/article.do - you can throw what you like into that bit of the URL, it won't make any difference.
Ah, you're right Elfy. I had not noticed that. I copy and pasted that URL into another discussion a couple of days ago.
However if you google the "pelted with bricks" URL you get one single result, a direct link to the article which includes the whole of that URL.
If you Google the same URL with different words in that section, e.g. Police pelted with cupcakes as they help dying man during G20 protests it doesn't recognise it as an address on the web. No results, just a suggestion of http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ as a site with a similar address. I don't know exactly what that suggests but my assumption is that the "bricks" URL once existed long enough for Google to pick it up (a couple of hours is normally enough for Google to pick up new pages on fast-changing sites), and that it was a reflection of the headline originally reported. When I first saw it, they'd already downgraded the propaganda by one notch.
The original version of the article was as follows:
News
POLICE PELTED WITH BRICKS AS THEY HELP DYING MAN
BY JUSTIN DAVENPORT AND DANNY BRIERLEY
753 words
2 April 2009
The Evening Standard
06
English
(c) 2009 Associated Newspapers. All rights reserved
* 'HEART ATTACK VICTIM' FOUND IN ALLEYWAY
* RIOT OFFICERS CLEAR OUT CITY CLIMATE CAMP
* MORE ARRESTS TODAY AT STOCK EXCHANGE
POLICE came under a barrage of missiles as they tried to save the life of a man who collapsed during the G20 protests in the City.
The officers were hit by bottles thrown from the crowd as they were forced to carry the man to a safe location to give him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. An ambulance crew then took him to hospital, where he died.
An independent investigation has been ordered into the death of the man in his forties, who was found slumped in an alley off Cornhill after suffering a suspected heart attack.
Police were today trying to establish whether he was taking part in the protest or was an innocent by-stander caught up in the trouble.
There were no reports that he was injured either by missiles thrown by the crowd or by the police. The incident has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Perhaps we need another series of protests outside newspaper headquarters.
Perhaps we need to jump to the conclusion that the police deliberately beat a man up because they're barbaric thugs? Clearly the reporting of the event was atrociously done, but let's not show the same lack of concern for facts in the other direction.
Who here is jumping to conclusions? Dave acknowledged that it's difficult to know what to believe, and Max said only that Tomlinson "may" have been killed by police.
True, I doubt that the police, even if they did 'assault' Mr Tomlinson, deliberately intended to cause him *serious* injury. I'm sure that any 'assault' would have been as a part of their apparent strategy to punish and deter protesters (and bystanders).
But the bigger questions are those surrounding the disproportionately violent police tactics (which are hard to dispute given the overwhelming evidence), and the initial misreporting of the events of the protest, in particular the first distorted reports of the events surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death.
That was not a lack of concern for the facts.
I was there last Wednesday, kettled in by the Bank Of England from just before midday (before any disorder had taken place) until just after 8:30pm. "Barbaric thugs" was about as kind a phrase as I could use for publication on this site, in respect of the criminal, treacherous behaviour of many of those paid with our taxes to protect us, not to take obvious pleasure from attacking and taunting people (young, old, male, female...at least they don't discriminate) just standing there waiting and pleading to be allowed to go home. Never mind the numerous lies we were told by officers during the day.
I'm not saying there weren't protesters whose behaviour was out of order and criminal during the day, but most of the police I encountered during the day are simply not fit to do the job. Surely serving as a police officer requires some integrity, and a basic understanding of what their job is? Not many on duty last week appeared to have much of either.
At one point I tried to tell a police medic about a girl who'd been injured in a rush (either badly sprained or broken her ankle). The guy just stared at me hatefully for a few seconds, then turned around and strolled off in the opposite direction, back into the crowd of his colleagues. Nice eh?
It's the assumption that "the police managed to engineer" an incident of protester led violence. Or the assumption that their strategy was to punish and deter protesters. Maybe it was, but it seems like people want headlines that don't read "Police pelted with bricks as they help dying man during G20 protests" but rather "Protesters attacked by violent barbaric thugs whose job it is to protect them".
"the assumption that their strategy was to punish and deter protesters"
Not so much an assumption as an observation. There are numerous reports, in the (non-tabloid) press and elsewhere, of police being very heavy-handed towards protesters, and responding to complaints with comments such as "maybe you'll think twice before coming to a protest". Sounds like deliberate deterrence of protest to me.
"it seems like people want headlines that don't read 'Police pelted with bricks as they help dying man during G20 protests' but rather 'Protesters attacked by violent barbaric thugs whose job it is to protect them'."
I think it's hard to generalise about what 'people' want from news headlines concerning the protests. In fact, I think it's fair to say that there are various different groups of people with opposing 'agendas' who would all like to see their own viewpoint confirmed.
Personally, I would want news headlines to be truthful, and not blatantly fabricated. There has been overwhelming eyewitness testimony to indicate that reports of a "screaming mob" attacking the paramedics with bricks and bottles are just a gross distortion of what actually happened. And yet the tabloids get away with it, because they cannot realistically be sued for libel in this case (presumably because there is no plaintiff).
And so I have to say that it's a sad indictment of our media when newspapers replace any notion of 'journalistic integrity' with an intent to print any sensationalist nonsense that they can legally get away with.
"There are numerous reports, in the (non-tabloid) press and elsewhere, of police being very heavy-handed towards protesters, and responding to complaints with comments such as "maybe you'll think twice before coming to a protest"."
Towards the end of the day, when it was already dark, and people were still being prevented from leaving, I heard more than one officer respond to complaints with answers such as:
"you made the choice to be here, you knew what you were getting into"
When the complainant pointed out that they did not know they were going to be effectively imprisoned without access to water for 8 hours, they were told they had been naïve. Sure, it's naïve to expect to be able to exercise one's right to protest without being treated like a criminal. There was a definite message of "if you protest, this is what will happen to you" being put out.
Speaking for myself, I was aware of the kettling tactic prior to attending last week. However I was not aware that it was definitely going to be used, regardless of what actually happened on the protest.
I'm still trying to find out exactly what time the RBS branch was trashed. If it was after midday, then that means the kettling tactic was used regardless of the need to contain violence. I had photos taken just before midday (11:58 - about 8 minutes after I arrived at Bank) which show the kettling had already begun on Cornhill.
Regarding the use of the word engineered - if it was not engineered it was negligence on somebody's part that requires addressing. Why was the branch one of the only buildings in the area not boarded up, despite the RBS being the target of considerable public anger (much of which is misguided in my opinion)? And considering this, why did the police choose that location to kettle in a crowd which looked (according to the video) more dense (and frightening) than any other that formed during the day?
I was keeping an eye on the timeline during the day and yes, the RBS smash-up happpened after the kettle had begun.
That there are questions that need to be asked of the police and of the media is definitely true. Clearly these were heavy-handed tactics and whether they should have been used or not should be called into question. Let's just ask them properly, and show them how honest investigation and reporting should be done.
On the point of the relationship between the kettling and the “attack” on RBS, something rather more incongruent happened with that incident. I had ventured up Bartholomew Lane on my way home at lunchtime curious to have a look at how the demonstration was progressing. Pretty soon the Police had started pushing the crowd back for some reason and I was half way back down Bartholomew when the “assault” on the RBS started. Initially some kicking against, and then the breaking of a window facing Bartholomew. Here we go, I thought, the police will be up here any second, as it was in their plain view from the bottom of Bartholomew, only 80 or so meters away.
Sure enough as if on cue a line of police horses appeared within a minute to reinforce the riot equipped police already there. I retreated back down behind some secure scaffolding that ran over the footpath down the side of the street. There were a few demonstrators and bystanders between Police and the attackers, but relatively little to stop them making a slow orderly progress up the street. I waited and waited for the inevitable, but they just kept their distance.
This effectively allowed the media “scrum” that you see in a lot of the footage of the incident to form and after a while it took on the air of a pantomime, almost like a display that was being staged for the event. I wandered back up myself and took some pictures from behind on my mobile phone, it really would have been that easy for the police to progress up and at least disperse the incident, if not grab the actual real perpetrators, rther than the drunken . Checking the times on pictures I took it was over a quarter of an hour before they started to push up the lane, by which time the whole event had fizzled out. Even then it was a very laborious manoeuvre that just seemed intent on keeping their “kettling” line intact. Make of that what you will but it just seemed to me later that the police were happy to let the one real piece of violent disorder that day play itself out for the gathered media to get their footage - footage which gives a very false impression of the general events of the day to anyone not there.
Point in fact I was actually quite shocked to see on YouTube a couple of days later some of the videos available of how the police used unnecessary aggression to deal with the climate camp at Bishopsgate, none of which I had seen in any mainstream media. Certainly gives an insight into how events are selectively used to give the wider public a completely imbalanced idea of what actually happened.
On the other note of how the tragic death of Mr Tomlinson was reported, try this variation where about half way through the article a piece of speculation is used to effectively portray him as having been killed by being “trampled on by the mob”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5096877/G20-protests-Four-charged-over-RBS-attack.html
I wandered down with my camera (like everyone else in London) around half twelve, one pm and the kettle was already in place. I was nearly swept up in the mayhem when a line of police broke out of the kettle and ran up Old Jewry to what I assume was the incident on Threadneedle (the RBS branch trashing).
My belief/guess is that the police kettled because it was approaching lunchtime in the City and they truly wanted it clamped down so that London managed a vague sense of 'business as usual'.
When I left the office at half six and realised that about a thousand people were still being held at Bank, I wanted to take them water myself and I was bang against the protests.
I hope someone gets done for murder for this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
Preferably every copper that was there that day. They were generally as indiscriminate and violent as this. Low life scum, having a jolly day out beating up the public.
Max - this is an astonishing (and rather sickening) video. Thanks for posting the link to it.