Ian Tomlinson and media coverage

[lyndonius]

So the news has arrived that ‘Officer A’ will not be charged in respect to the death of Ian Tomlinson. Having missed the 6:00 news on BBC1 I saw Channel 4 news’ in-depth coverage.

So why did Newsnight on BBC2 dedicated at most 1 minute in Gavin Eslers round up of ‘Other’ news preferring to dedicate a large section to the Libyan bombers release. This, I admit ,is an important story; but nothing we didn’t already know (allegations of BP lobbying for his release are at least a week old.)
Question time wasn’t better; covering it in the ‘quick one before we run out of time’ slot allowing the panellist just time for a quick opinion but no debate.

This is a story that won’t go away. The internet is full of comment of the death of Ian Tomlinson (I really don’t want to hear any more) I just want to know why the producers think this is a non-story.

[Admin]

It probably depends on how serious you think the policeman's action was - i.e. did he kill Tomlinson or may he have died that day anyway?

I think the policeman's behaviour was inexcusable and he should be (and is being IIRC) disciplined, but I find it hard to believe it was murder and any attempt at a manslaughter charge would mean that the death would have had to have been undoubtedly caused by the push.

I think it would have been bigger news if the policeman in question had been charged. But as it is, I think the story looks like it's being given less prominence than it should only if you assume the policeman was guilty of murder/manslaughter.

[Watchman]

I think the story looks like it's being given less prominence than it should only if you assume the policeman was guilty of murder/manslaughter.[/QUOTE]


Possibly.... but if you believe the London Evening Standard...the Met may have more questions to answer...

"The Met was today under growing pressure to explain why the police officer who pushed over Ian Tomlinson was re-employed by the force despite questions over his disciplinary record.
Pc Simon Harwood, 43, retired from the Met a decade ago on ill health grounds while facing a misconduct hearing for an alleged road rage incident."

Plus there are ongoing concerns over the Pathologist...

"The revelation that the Met reported concerns about the competence of Dr Freddy Patel, the first pathologist to examine Mr Tomlinson, to the Home Office in 2004, but that he was given only "words of advice".
A claim by the second pathologist to examine Mr Tomlinson that there was enough evidence to bring a charge of causing actual bodily harm."

I hope we havent heard the last of this case.....the Met already has a reputation...this needs to be cleared up...one way or the other...

[Watchman]

Just spotted a story in the Guardian...about the Coroner in the Tomlinson case....apparently there are some more irregularities over the postmortum...so at least some of the press are running with this....

[bindeweede]

Just spotted a story in the Guardian...about the Coroner in the Tomlinson case....apparently there are some more irregularities over the postmortum...so at least some of the press are running with this....

Is this it?

Professor Paul Matthews instructed Dr Freddy Patel to carry out the first postmortem on the newspaper seller. Patel, who is under investigation by the General Medical Council, concluded he died from a heart attack. Two further postmortems said the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ju...nquest-coroner

[Watchman]

Yup thats it....

[Pebble]

I find the information presented in the media confusing.

If two of three postmortems concluded that he died of internal bleeding, there is not discrepant medical expert opinion.

He may or may not have had a heart attack, if there was unequivocal evidence of internal bleeding, then the heart attack if present could have been caused by such bleeding. Sending the heart for analysis to determine if there had been a heart attack would not be difficult, unless it had been destroyed. Given the timelines reported this seems unlikely.

Was the suggestion of internal bleeding based purely on interpretations of the reported findings from the first postmortem or based on actual independent postmortems?