THIS IS IN THE TIMES

from Rod Liddle:

I wonder what the next line of disinformation will be from the Metropolitan police over the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests 10 or so days ago. That they firmly believed the deceased to be Brazilian? That they have subsequently “discovered” a stash of kiddie porn in Tomlinson’s home – a ploy they tried out before, remember, when they were in a spot of trouble having shot an entirely innocent Muslim bloke at his home in Forest Gate, London?

You have to hand it to them: for an institution which seems to be run by serial incompetents and cretins, they are at least extraordinarily creative when it comes to telling porkie pies. At dissembling, obfuscating and smearing wholly innocent people whom they have egregiously wronged, either by shooting them or, in their less vigorous moments, just knocking them about a bit...

...The first statement from the Met came on the day of Tomlinson’s death, April 1; the Met reported sadly that they had come under attack from the protesters, being pelted with bottles, while they tried to help him.

Further, an ambulance was delayed in reaching the chap because protesters had deliberately blocked the way.

And then the witness statements emerged and, more crucially – because who would believe the word of one of those lentil-eating, unwashed anarcho-syndicalist hippies? – the filmed evidence. The police didn’t try to help Tomlinson at all; instead they twice attacked him, both with bare hands and with batons. It was instead the demonstrators who tried to help the man and were prevented from doing so largely by the police. Nor was it the demonstrators who stopped the ambulance getting through, but – it has since been revealed – a police cordon. There were no bottles; just medical students trying to help who were told to clear off by the plod.

Later the police story subtly shifted, to minimise the link between the now clear and unambiguous police attacks on Tomlinson and his death, moments later, from a heart attack. But again – inconveniently – the demonstrators came forward; as Tomlinson lay dying, he had blood on his face. There, then, is the link.

Liked a drink or two, Ian Tomlinson – between you and me, bit of an alkie, really, and not in the best of health. That’s the latest information which has appeared, mysteriously, in the press. Probably gave it a bit of lip, too – and, worse still, was seen knowingly and openly wearing a shirt supportive of Millwall football club. We rest our case, etc. Unfortunate, but nobody really to blame, certainly not the copper, doing his best in difficult circumstances.

There will be more to come. But it will all be undone because surely nobody, now, would believe the police’s version of events, not even one of those independent inquiries we get every so often to mollify public opinion. Not after the fabulous rubbish which the Met has come up with so far in order to evade the blame for Tomlinson’s death – or, while we’re at it, the stuff they initially came up with when Jean Charles de Menenez was shot by them. Or the desperate scrabbling around for an excuse or a smokescreen after they had shot Mohammed Abdul Kahar, in Forest Gate, for the crime of being in possession of a provocative beard and a copy of the Koran. Child pornography and loads of money underneath his bed – got to be a wrong ’un. All, as it turned out, lies...