Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Video reveals G20 police assault on man who died

245

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Whatever happens, the man is a disgrace to the uniform. Like I said before, it's one thing using force to arrest someone or to quell a riot. Pushing someone like that is uncalled for, if he'd said/done something illegal he should have been detained and arrested, something they could have done quite easily as they weren't surrounded by protestors at that moment.

    See, now this is the issue that I have. We can all accept that the occasional bad apple in public services. The bigger issue is the seemingly institutionalized covering up of misdoings in the police force, particularly in these sort of us vs. them situations. How many complaints about abuses by police officers are filed by police officers themselves who witnessed events? I suspect very few. Why should it be up to the victims to file a complaint afterwards, while a load of police officers look on and watch the abuses happening? If I get assaulted by a random person on the street, and a police officer sees it, I don't have to wait until the person has finished the assault, and file a complaint the next day. He'll be rightly arrested straight away. Why do I have to do this if the person committing the assault is a police officer? It shouldn't just be the officer who committed the assault who is suspended, it should be the ones that saw it and did nothing about it too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The simple answer would be that they're human...

    A complex one would be that the small-unit dynamics of stressful jobs which require teamwork and physical and mental toughness need to produce an 'us against the world' mentality (and often in things like policing and soldiering you are in situtations where it is a real 'us against them' because you're the ones called into deal with things when they go wrong). And in any succesful group you deal with things internally, rather than 'ratting' out to your bosses or even worse outsiders.

    The more important question is how far does a civilised society tolerate it? It may be fine to say zero tolerance, but in reality you will then get a police service (or army) which is fundamentally ineffective and that may not be the best result for society...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The more important question is how far does a civilised society tolerate it? It may be fine to say zero tolerance, but in reality you will then get a police service (or army) which is fundamentally ineffective and that may not be the best result for society...

    A very good framing of the question IMHO, no institution is perfect and a certain amount of pragmatism is obviously essential.

    I would say however that in this case there isn't nearly as much of the inevitable 'us and them' dynamic as one might imagine - they weren't faced with an angry mob in all quarters, but chose to escalate the situation to a confrontational one by changing the deployment of officers when the situation was well in hand.

    What that week's policing showed, in my view, was that the police are capable of policing large demonstrations in a effective but non-violent manner...what happened was they badly misjudged the type of policing, and as a result involved far too many pumped up, undisciplined and ill-mannered thugs in the operation, when a great many (I saw and spoke with them) reasonable, diplomatic and sensible officers were on hand.

    The police as a whole did not do a uniformly bad job, but the organisation must bear (RBS notwithstanding) the brunt of the blame for the inflammatory tactics, intimidation and wanton thuggery that a number of officers displayed that day.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just heard on BBC three, the copper in the video was suspended.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A very good framing of the question IMHO, no institution is perfect and a certain amount of pragmatism is obviously essential.

    I would say however that in this case there isn't nearly as much of the inevitable 'us and them' dynamic as one might imagine - they weren't faced with an angry mob in all quarters, but chose to escalate the situation to a confrontational one by changing the deployment of officers when the situation was well in hand.

    What that week's policing showed, in my view, was that the police are capable of policing large demonstrations in a effective but non-violent manner...what happened was they badly misjudged the type of policing, and as a result involved far too many pumped up, undisciplined and ill-mannered thugs in the operation, when a great many (I saw and spoke with them) reasonable, diplomatic and sensible officers were on hand.

    The police as a whole did not do a uniformly bad job, but the organisation must bear (RBS notwithstanding) the brunt of the blame for the inflammatory tactics, intimidation and wanton thuggery that a number of officers displayed that day.

    Possibly, though other demos have shown that the police are perfectly capable of dealing with large demos of peaceful protesters. However, groups which sing 'Harry Roberts is my friend' and who were riled up by organisers saying there might be real bankers hanging from lamposts are, almost by definition, going to make top level peelers rather worried about their capacity for violence.

    especially as only a few months before the protests against Gaza resulted in an underprepared police force being pushed back and large undisciplined crowds causing a large number of injuries, both deliberate and accidental.

    You could also argue that the large number of police in riot gear stopped the violence by persuading those who were out for trouble that they were going to loose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However, groups which sing 'Harry Roberts is my friend' and who were riled up by organisers saying there might be real bankers hanging from lamposts are, almost by definition, going to make top level peelers rather worried about their capacity for violence.

    Only ever heard that at football to be fair (certainly not at any of the demos I have attended), and to be honest if we're gonna talk of 'riling up' the Met had been publicly talking this up and preparing City and citizenry for WW3 or about six months. They also banned several protest groups from attending press conferences to put their side of the story. No bankers harmed, and RBS was the only thing hit. Not good, not lawful, not acceptable - but not WW3
    especially as only a few months before the protests against Gaza resulted in an underprepared police force being pushed back and large undisciplined crowds causing a large number of injuries, both deliberate and accidental.

    Different group, different tactics; they'd policed big demos by the groups they knew (because they'd been told in advance) would be acting in particular ways, which they did.
    You could also argue that the large number of police in riot gear stopped the violence by persuading those who were out for trouble that they were going to loose.

    You could argue that, but there is more evidence to argue that by changing tactics in situations where things were well in hand - property not life was in danger - they did something far more damaging; erode public trust in their ability to handle things in a manner consistent with the democratic society they police.

    This argument is supported by previous evidence of the conduct (at Kingsnorth) of people, particularly those on Bishopsgate, who in previous actions have never even been accused of committing violence, although a massive propaganda (I can find no other acceptable word) campaign had been mounted to suggest that violence could ensue.

    Of course it didn't, and the only demonstrable agitation, intimidation and violence at Kingsnorth came from the police side - for example; we KNOW that they listed officer injuries in a manner which implied they had received them on site, only to have to retract these later as preexisting injuries. We KNOW they made 'confiscations' of 'weapons' later found to be a bike lock and sundry household items, including a copy of the War on Terror boardgame <hides copy under bed>.

    You could argue that this stopped the violence, but you could do that only in completely morally ambiguous terms - it is only the same thing as saying that any excessive force is deployed with the effect that it precludes any possibility of resistance, and if that is an acceptable tactic then we lose a great deal more in terms of social and political welfare than is gained.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only ever heard that at football to be fair (certainly not at any of the demos I have attended), and to be honest if we're gonna talk of 'riling up' the Met had been publicly talking this up and preparing City and citizenry for WW3 or about six months. They also banned several protest groups from attending press conferences to put their side of the story. No bankers harmed, and RBS was the only thing hit. Not good, not lawful, not acceptable - but not WW3.

    To be honest I'd like to see evidence they stopped protest groups from attending press conferences - as opposed to saying they couldn't hold their press conference in a particular place. And yes the police had been saying this could be a big one, but that's because various protest groups were also bigging things up.


    Different group, different tactics; they'd policed big demos by the groups they knew (because they'd been told in advance) would be acting in particular ways, which they did.

    Perhaps there is a lesson if you want a peaceful protest there, co-operate with the police and don't suggest bankers may end up hanging from lamposts. If you want a peaceful protest there is no reason why you shouldn't co-operate with the peelers, better for all involved - bystander, the police and the demonstrators...

    You could argue that, but there is more evidence to argue that by changing tactics in situations where things were well in hand - property not life was in danger - they did something far more damaging; erode public trust in their ability to handle things in a manner consistent with the democratic society they police.

    This argument is supported by previous evidence of the conduct (at Kingsnorth) of people, particularly those on Bishopsgate, who in previous actions have never even been accused of committing violence, although a massive propaganda (I can find no other acceptable word) campaign had been mounted to suggest that violence could ensue.

    Of course it didn't, and the only demonstrable agitation, intimidation and violence at Kingsnorth came from the police side - for example; we KNOW that they listed officer injuries in a manner which implied they had received them on site, only to have to retract these later as preexisting injuries. We KNOW they made 'confiscations' of 'weapons' later found to be a bike lock and sundry household items, including a copy of the War on Terror boardgame <hides copy under bed>.

    You could argue that this stopped the violence, but you could do that only in completely morally ambiguous terms - it is only the same thing as saying that any excessive force is deployed with the effect that it precludes any possibility of resistance, and if that is an acceptable tactic then we lose a great deal more in terms of social and political welfare than is gained

    The peelers are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't (which isn't to say mistakes aren't made). If they'd let the crowd damage property that has an awful propsentity to turn to them damaging any people caught inside that property or who they don't like (and to be honest the police have a duty to stop undemocratic and unaccountable groups smashing things up). I would argue that by failing to deal with organisations which act unlawfully, there is much wider damage to society; not least in encouraging small, unpopular groups to claim the streets, which then have to be reclaimed for the public by the police.

    This doesn't mean you should baton someone who is walking by with their hands in their pockets, but illegal protesters shouldn't be given a free ride to do what they like.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I'd like to see evidence they stopped protest groups from attending press conferences - as opposed to saying they couldn't hold their press conference in a particular place.

    Not what I meant - what I meant was the Met were holding press conferences, Camp for Climate Change Action contacted them several times in open letters and through an MP, and the Met refused to allow them into that press conference.
    And yes the police had been saying this could be a big one, but that's because various protest groups were also bigging things up.

    Different contexts - the size of the protest was never in doubt, and the number of officers needed isn't something I'm really able to comment on - what I'm getting at is the constant 'WARNING! WARNING! dress down, lock up daughters, DANGER WILL ROBINSON! etc. that kept coming out of the Met.
    Perhaps there is a lesson if you want a peaceful protest there, co-operate with the police and don't suggest bankers may end up hanging from lamp-posts. If you want a peaceful protest there is no reason why you shouldn't co-operate with the peelers, better for all involved - bystander, the police and the demonstrators...

    But this is what we've all been saying all along - groups such as the aforementioned made active moves, for months, to cooperate with the police, to provide them with information, to enter into dialogue, and it was the Met who refused. There is no 'lesson' for the protest movements here, but there could be an uncomfortable one for the police.

    Co-operation was going on all day on Bishopsgate, the police were completely unmolested as was everyone else including the many city workers who felt comfortable enough to walk through the place.

    If you had actually been down there on the line and seen the way that the police who turned up after seven were swearing and threatening people just standing around, I doubt you would pick out the protesters as the ones incapable of cooperation.
    I would argue that by failing to deal with organisations which act unlawfully, there is much wider damage to society; not least in encouraging small, unpopular groups to claim the streets, which then have to be reclaimed for the public by the police.

    This doesn't mean you should baton someone who is walking by with their hands in their pockets, but illegal protesters shouldn't be given a free ride to do what they like.

    How is there 'much wider damage to society' and please tell me where conclusive evidence exists that action on Climate Change is unpopular, apart from in the boardroom of Shell?

    The Countryside Alliance demo was decidedly unpopular, and not a little rowdy, however I wouldn't for a second suggest that they should be denied the right to take up a street, in the capital, for a day, to make their point (which by the way, I fundamentally disagree with on hunting).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The whole use of the 'summer of rage' thing before hand was provocative and practically encouraging people to go along and misbehave in my opinion.

    Someone (elsewhere) seemed to suggest that the purpose of the 'summer of rage' was to put off protesters that wouldn't be interested in violence and the like. I think it did the exact opposite.

    Probably the media are more to blame for that though?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not what I meant - what I meant was the Met were holding press conferences, Camp for Climate Change Action contacted them several times in open letters and through an MP, and the Met refused to allow them into that press conference.

    I'm not sure that's unusual - the Tories tend no to let Labour MPs into their press conferences, the Government doesn't invite its critics and I'm guessing Camp for Climate Change Press conferences don't allow speakers from Shell


    Different contexts - the size of the protest was never in doubt, and the number of officers needed isn't something I'm really able to comment on - what I'm getting at is the constant 'WARNING! WARNING! dress down, lock up daughters, DANGER WILL ROBINSON! etc. that kept coming out of the Met.

    It wasn't the size, it was the fact that some groups wouldn't co-operate. To be fair some did, but then they're not the ones the peelers were worried about.

    How is there 'much wider damage to society' and please tell me where conclusive evidence exists that action on Climate Change is unpopular, apart from in the boardroom of Shell?

    I have no conclusive evidence, though I would point at the petrol protests, the number of people flying and the low support for the Green Party to suggest this is not a movement with mass popular support

    The wider damage to society is that unelected groups seek to overturn the democratically elected Government's decision by use of violence and threat of violence (against people or property). This is different from groups picketing their MPs, marching in the streets or trying to persuade voters to support a particular view...
    The Countryside Alliance demo was decidedly unpopular, and not a little rowdy, however I wouldn't for a second suggest that they should be denied the right to take up a street, in the capital, for a day, to make their point (which by the way, I fundamentally disagree with on hunting

    Could you then point to why the Countryside Alliance demo was unpopular (it was the second largest demo ever seen in this country I believe). But even though I don't care about hunting, but believe people should have freedom to do what they want, the police were right to deal with those who moved from peaceful protest to unlawful violence
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Could you then point to why the Countryside Alliance demo was unpopular (it was the second largest demo ever seen in this country I believe). But even though I don't care about hunting, but believe people should have freedom to do what they want, the police were right to deal with those who moved from peaceful protest to unlawful violence

    It was unpopular in the sense that the public perception was that a majority of those who were involved were supporting hunting as the main trust of the 'Liberty and Livelihood' march, where around 10% were thought to been either involved or have a stake in hunting with dogs. The majority of the points that were delivered to number 10 on the petition were to do with the assault on sustainable rural living by increasingly centralised forms of bureaucratic control in Westminister.

    The parallel between them and the G20 is that despite this being the message, the image was of a march on hunting with dogs, which was only one of a much greater number of more pressing issues. The image was unpopular in the same way that the G20 protests were represented as a majority of brick-happy revolutionaries who were intent on overthrowing the state (and unpopular action) - when the breadth of message and opinion and action was not this at all.

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/john-jackson/2009/02/11/liberty-and-livelihood

    Oh and while we're on them - how's this for anti-democratic actions, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/nov/01/ruralaffairs.hunting. Slightly beyond 'know thy enemy' into the territory of private health records, mental health status etc...
    It wasn't the size, it was the fact that some groups wouldn't co-operate. To be fair some did, but then they're not the ones the peelers were worried about.

    Yes but they represented the vast majority of those who were there and once again I draw attention to the example of Bishopsgate - full co-operation, advance warning, dialogue, no history or intent of violence.
    I have no conclusive evidence, though I would point at the petrol protests, the number of people flying and the low support for the Green Party to suggest this is not a movement with mass popular support

    In order; the petrol protests were mainly about tax on a commodity that made economic activity for workers particularly difficult, this cannot be pointed to as being against action on Climate change.

    The number of people flying - again, depends; people don't generally get on a plane to screw the climate, what motivates action is usually the perception of danger or some other motivating factor. Ignorance isn't consent, even though it does have that effect.

    The Green Party - are not the arbiters of Climate change policy, support for them in no way a conclusive barometer of support for climate change action.
    The wider damage to society is that unelected groups seek to overturn the democratically elected Government's decision by use of violence and threat of violence (against people or property). This is different from groups picketing their MPs, marching in the streets or trying to persuade voters to support a particular view...

    Never a serious or credible threat of this happening at all, didn't represent the intention or will or action of the majority of protesters.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wouldn't do what?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The police are there to "protect us", or so they say.
    Fearing them would make no difference and is the wrong way to go.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tr4shed wrote: »
    No he is right, police should be feared, very feared. If people knew that a police man could walk right up to him and knock him out with a stick, then they wouldn't do it.

    genius, pure genius!

    If the police had guns that would be even better - they could just kill crims there and then :cool: :cool: :cool: :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tr4shed wrote: »
    They wouldn't commit a crime...

    Tbh no one would ever assault a police officer or attempt it...
    The Govt needs to make the Police feared.



    I disagree completely.

    I get my job done because I'm respected. I'm known by nearly everyone in a town of 10,000 people because I'm fair and I act propotionately to things.

    If I were feared I'd never get anything done, I'd never get any information about anything and nobody would do anthing I ask them without me having to resort to violence. The last time I actually used violence of any sort was when I had to arrest a violent shoplifter who was threatening to stab me and my colleague with a needle and that was 4 months ago.

    The government needs to allow local police to act autonomously without inteference, once local people see them become more effective at dealing with crime in ways that benefit them, they will respect them more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson

    It just gets worse - this is going to do serious damage to public confidence in the police - already not outstanding in some quarters - which is no good for anyone.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/11/g20-ian-tomlinson-death

    Oh and Marina Hyde has got it bang on in my view here - 'put enough cameras on the police and even the serially deferential wake up'

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/11/police-surveillance-marina-hyde
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson

    It just gets worse - this is going to do serious damage to public confidence in the police - already not outstanding in some quarters - which is no good for anyone.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/11/g20-ian-tomlinson-death

    You normally seem quite reasoned Martin, so what is it that bothers you about the pathologist? I've just read through that story and to me it reads like an appalling piece of political spin.

    You seem to be agreeing that public confidence will be damaged because the pathologist once chose to reveal information about a police cover-up? Surely that should give more confidence in the legitimacy of a case.

    As to the comments by David Howarth - I can only feel shame that a politician, with absolutely no medical or scientific evidence can decide how legitimate a post-mortem is. There's nothing about how quickly it was carried out that has been suggested as illegitimate, just that a second post-mortem should be carried out in the light of new evidence.

    For me this shows how little politicians and journalists care about Ian Tomlinson, all that matters now is keeping the story in the newspapers - no matter what yellow journalism needs to be used or what completely irrelevant issue can be dragged up to keep it there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the Guardian's article about the pathologist was a poor piece of journalism but it does raise questions about the competence of the pathologist. The guy probably did die of a heart attack after severe trauma, but why the hell didn't the pathologist notice all the bruising and damage to the back? It's an important question that needs to be answered.

    Police should only be respected if their actions warrant respect. My grandfather was a very well respected bobby (so much so that people still talk about him fondly now, 20 years after he passed away) because he was fair and reasonable and firm. Many police officers understand that being fair and reasonable is how you get the job done on an individual level, but sadly this doesn't happen when it comes to crowd management. It never has done.

    The only shock with this story is that people are shocked. Anyone who's been to a football match know what the police are like with crowds they don't like. Ask any bobby for his name or number in this situation, for whatever reason, or ask for help and you won't get it, unless they really are called 'fuck off you fucking cunt'.

    96 people died in Sheffield because of the police's attitudes to crowds and now, 20 years on, people are still dying because of it. The attitude is endemic when it comes to crowd control and I don't ever see it changing.

    I don't believe that the individual officers are evil but collectively the police have an attitude that you hit first, hit second and hit third. Being reasonable doesn't come into it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You normally seem quite reasoned Martin, so what is it that bothers you about the pathologist? I've just read through that story and to me it reads like an appalling piece of political spin.

    You're bang on about Howarth, and to be honest this shouldn't be the top story on their (The Guardian's) main page however, if you look at the conditions under which he made the comments that led to his GMC reprimand in 1999, he divulged information that could prejudice the investigation AGAINST the man who had died, not for the Police (by revealing that he had been a user of Crack Cocaine, but giving no further details).

    I think Howarth's got no place sticking his nose in - 'I thought this was too quick' :rolleyes: how the hell would he know?

    But I do think there is something here worth reporting - if it's a coincidence, then it's a coincidence that he was used instead of the standard team for suspicious deaths. Also I have first hand knowledge from my professional life that some Dr's with GMC reprimands go on to have completely successful careers after that, so this is in no way a smoking gun of any kind.

    Yes there are aspects of bandwagon jumping going on here, unfortunately this was always going to happen, but I can't say that it isn't worth reporting.

    People are and were still jumping the gun - I went to Bank the day after he died and watched blackhooded 17 year olds posting 'Met Murderers' placards on the statue before even I thought there was any police involvement - and whether they are proved right or not is irrelevant to the fact that they'd made up their minds before due course had been followed.

    I was thinking about going to the memorial march today, and work has made the decision for me unfortunately - I think there are two aspects to this however; there is the fact that a particular man died, and his death should not be exported into other contexts or causes over which he has no control and had no involvement, that's just a given.

    But there is a general point arising from his death, about the safety of all of us from this kind of violence - according to the Marina Hyde article, 1000 deaths in police custody over the last 30 years - that's 1 every 10 or so days - and I do think that this is a watershed in the large degree of deference the police have received on their use of violence and coercion in this country.
    I don't believe that the individual officers are evil but collectively the police have an attitude that you hit first, hit second and hit third. Being reasonable doesn't come into it.

    What he said; apart from the fact that from what I saw, there are one or two officers who love the prospect of a large row (one in which they are armoured and armed) a little too much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7997990.stm

    This could well be an honest mistake (and no evidence to contrary at present), but the rush to provide such detail so soon after the incident doesn't instill confidence in process.

    I am however at somewhat of a loss as to who in modern Britain could possibly believe that there are no CCTV cameras in such a central area of our capital city....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The IPCC shouldn't be commenting until the investigation has been completed. I think it shows that they're just wanting it to be swept under the carpet. If that stockbroker (how ironic!) hadn't filmed it happening, and the Guardian hadn't run with the story, it would have been swept under the carpet.

    It's a pretty bum deal when the watchdog is siding with the police and taking the police version of events as gospel.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This would be quite funny if it weren't so fucking wrong...

    my.php?image=policemedic.jpg


    In other news, another copper has just been suspended for hitting a woman during the protests

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7999277.stm


    If there was the will to examine all available footage from the day, many, many more cases would be unveiled. Of course, there is no political will to do so.

    All those of you who said at the time 'well done to the police for tackling those crusties etc etc' (yawn), do you still the police did a good job? Or will it take a bunch of Middle England tories getting the shit beaten out of them for you to see things differently?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Or will it take a bunch of Middle England tories getting the shit beaten out of them for you to see things differently?




    Didn't a bunch of Middle England Tories get the shit kicked out of them during the hunt protests........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The IPCC shouldn't be commenting until the investigation has been completed. I think it shows that they're just wanting it to be swept under the carpet. If that stockbroker (how ironic!) hadn't filmed it happening, and the Guardian hadn't run with the story, it would have been swept under the carpet.

    It's a pretty bum deal when the watchdog is siding with the police and taking the police version of events as gospel.

    Richard Offer, Head of Media at the IPCC from 2004 - 2008, has written this in the Guardian today...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/ipcc-police-protests

    Thoughts?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find it particularly disturbing that the officer suspended for assaulting the woman had covered/removed his identification number. Premeditation to thuggery much?

    I also find it quite hilarious that the Met police chief initially claimed there was no CCTV footage available to study the various incidens of alleged police brutality. No CCTV footage available. In the City of London. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thoughts about the IPCC head's comments?

    Firstly, he would say that, wouldn't he?

    Secondly, if they're so open and honest and fair, why was the IPCC's first action to call at the Guardian's offices to demand the videos be taken from the website?

    Thirdly, to Aladdin: it wasn't the head of the Met who said that, it was the IPCC's own fucking spokesman.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I find it particularly disturbing that the officer suspended for assaulting the woman had covered/removed his identification number. Premeditation to thuggery much?

    Nah, that's standard proceedure for at least the last 15 years. Although when you're on a march and suddenly a hundred policemen cover their ID and put on leather gloves it doesn't usually bode well...

    But plenty of non-violent Police would have done the same. Which is not to say I think it's right, just that it doesn't reveal as much as you might think it would.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Thirdly, to Aladdin: it wasn't the head of the Met who said that, it was the IPCC's own fucking spokesman.
    I stand corrected. That's actually a lot worse of course.

    But then, the very idea of an organisation 'independently' investigating itself has always seemed a fallacy to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I stand corrected. That's actually a lot worse of course.

    But then, the very idea of an organisation 'independently' investigating itself has always seemed a fallacy to me.

    That's why they set up the IPPC....
Sign In or Register to comment.