If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Are you saying that they are supposed to cover up their ID number?
Well that clears that up....;)
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1169168/AMANDA-PLATELL-A-disturbing-death-tawdry-lust-fame-.html
What a truly worthless piece of garbage. Fit for the paper it appears in, I suppose...
Would there ever be a time when it would be unprovoked though?
I wonder what impact if any this might have on any action being considered against the copper(s) in question.
So they didn't accidentally their numbers? :eek: thas naughty
I thought you were being sarky but couldn't tell.
I don't know, it just seems to me we are going after the messenger rather than the people higher up who should be responsible for the conduct of their officers. It's clear that these weren't isolated outbreaks, it was the way the police were dealing with it. Any idiot with two brain cells could see if they're being heavy handed there is the potential for disaster. And as soon as there is a fatality they find the fall guy pretty quickly and his trial by media is all but over.
To be fair that's not much different that any fight on the town. If somebody's not seriously injured very little comes of it.
He's unfortunate, but then most people facing a manslaughter charge are unfortunate. It's the nature of the crime.
All of which can be summed up in one word - CUNT.
Back to this story, and the front pages of the Grauniad and Indy are not pretty reading for the Met today...
And if you can get past the admittedly very nice picture of Princess Eugenie, it's even on the Mail...
And the police wonder why they have such a shit reputation? Time for them to stop protecting the people who gave them a bad reputation in the first place - our useless politicians. The moment that happens, you'll see change.
Yea I guess the marginal difference I'm getting at is if all of these PCs are instructed to use these kind of techniques to move people, everyone complains saying it's wrong but the police commissioner and politicians just say it's the lesser of two evils, they need to be equipped with the 'tools to do the job' and so on, but as soon as a PC who has likely been encouraged by his colleagues etc. (not directly as in 'smack his head in', but if one is being forceful then its like a sheep mentality) and there is a quiet acceptance that that's what they're allowed to do, and the bigwigs are agreeing with them - as soon as the PC does it and it goes wrong, everyone immediately scatters and turns round and says "what the fuck you doing mate?". When just as easily it could have been any one of them because they were all acting like that.
If the police commissioner wants to say that it's ok to use these tactics and this kind of force then he has to say (and weigh it on HIS conscience) that the occasional death through the use of these tactics is acceptable too. But to me it seems rather than doing that everyone wants to distance themselves from the PC and say what a nasty person he was when he was probably doing what he was told and through this silent acceptance from his colleagues encouraged to act like that.
It's all very well saying people should stand up to orders they think are wrong but crowd / group mentality has a lot to answer for, the most shocking example of which is the compliance of thousands of german soldiers etc. with the holocaust. If everyone else is doing it, it must be ok. But as soon as someone says it's wrong, you went too far, they don't go after hitler they go after the guy driving the truck to the gas chamber.
For every cop that overreacts or acts outside the law, you'll have 10's or hundreds who act like the cop above but they hardly get a mention.
Disgusted that nobody's mentioned it? Lots of people die tragically doing their job ffs. He got killed by some armed robbers and tragic as it is, unless they were armed with placards I fail to see what relevance it has here.
The relevance is that the media are banging on and on and on about a man who died, POSSIBLY because of a police action and if some reports are to be believed despite some peoples' beliefs he had been causing trouble anyway.
The media are banging on and on about a woman who after pushing a riot cop was, to her surprise given a slap and a smack on the leg with a baton.
But the media are really not paying any press coverage whatsoever to a police officer who died trying to apprehend some armed scumbags.
Is that the one that was run over? If so, it must've been in the media, because I read it. Like I've said, the issue isn't that a man died at the hands of the police, it's the conduct of the police in dealing with it. Something which has far wider implications than the incident itself, especially given this governments seemingly endless aim of removing people's rights.
And while a police officer dying in the line of duty is a tragedy, as a story, it has nowhere near the political implications of the G20 ones.
Here we are, a PCSO making excuses for a fellow police officer actions. What suprise. The behavior of the police in both instances is unnacceptable, and you're trying to downplay it. You obviously don't think this is that important.
I don't think Whowhere is making excuses, everyone sees things from a different perspective.
I agree that what was done was wrong, he had no right to hit him when his back was turned, but I can also sympathise with the officer involved. They are human after all, when you've had protesters in your face all day and at times fearing for your own personal safety, it is possible every now and then to lose your tether and lash out. However, when that happens obviously you have to face the consequences which is what this officer will be doing. But I think despite his actions, which should not have have taken, he should have controlled his fursttation, I do sympathise with him.
Well he doesn't seem to think it's all that serious.
He had no right to hit him AT ALL.
The only sympathy I have is that a policeman knows that his actions probably killed somebody and I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
But if it was his actions that led to the death of Tomlinson (as seems likely), then he should be charged accordingly - in just the same way I'd be charged If I'd done it. There's never any justification for the police to lose control in that way.
And policeman who backhanded and stuck that woman with a batton should be charged aswell. She was gobbing off and she was swearing but as soon we let that be justification for a copper to assualt you were all in trouble.
...and again...here's a number of old bill getting their jollies by beating people up...Neon Chavs, is all these (particular) people are.
and also the silence is now quite DEAFENING at this point, from all those reactionary persons (note I'm not equating skeptical with reactionary) who told us - the people who were there - that we were all a bunch of trouble makers out to defame the good name of her majesty's Police.
There is a point which I hadn't considered but which I think certain officers might like to reflect on, even if they weren't guilty of this. Police operate in dangerous circumstances (I don't mean this - I mean proper danger, like when dealing with criminal cartels, violent offenders, and on very limited occasions, terrorists).
They operate however in a public space, and there may well be times when a police officer will need the support, assistance or testimony of a member of the public. That trust is being systematically undermined, daily, by the procession of evidence emerging now.
It's a situation that has only negative consequences for all parties, and I would therefore like to pose the following question; unless we can see, from the police tactics, actions and handling of the protests, that some great benefit came out of it relative to the damage, both literal and symbolic, that has been done to relations between our public service and the public it serves - is it now not right to say that there is no clear evidence base for the use of this type of policing in this situation again?
NB: I'm not talking about the Tomlinson case where the peeler just clubs him as he's moving away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtr-6sWgTEE
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpTj4msfCVM&feature=related
You really need to brush up on your historical analogies. They couldn't go after Hitler, he was dead as was Goebells, Borhman probably was killed trying to flee Berlin. They did however go after the remaining top guys - Goering and Himmler were both hunted down, but committed suicide before facing the hangman's rope.
Amongst those hung were William Frick, Minister of the Interior, Hans Frank, Reichcommissar of Poland, Keitell and Jodl, head of the Wermacht and his Chief of Operations respectivelly, von Ribbentrop, the Foreign Minister, and Julius Streicher, a publisher and propogandist. And that's only the main trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequent_Nuremberg_Trials
what has any of that got to do this case? I can't tell if you're just being amusing or you just missed my point altogether.
i.e. the don't go after the ringleader (responsible) they go after the 'messenger' or underling or whatever.
I'm not completely ignorant to the most notable historic event in the last century
i guess i just didnt make that side point very clear and had to be well informed about the historical events to ensure i never make that mistake again
With you on the use of the Hitler analogy; but dragging up any random incidents of public disorder to justify other specific incidents of policing is not very convincing argumentation - your examples come from a group of demonstrators markedly different, reacting in different ways, and presenting an altogether different scenario for the police. Any rudimentary police intelligence before hand would have revealed this.
You've picked a completely separate demo, different people, cause demographic, tactics and history of conduct...next case...
Again you are far too dismissive here I feel - if either of those had resulted in serious injury or complications then you wouldn't be so ready to dismiss them. A man who knows he is vulnerable to blows to the head, for example; due to a medical condition, has the right to expect in this society not to be bashed about the head by a policeman if he not threatening that policeman.
If you are suggesting that this is 'nothing serious' then you would have to also make the same assertion for had either of those people had a serious injury or complication - although I acknowledge you explicitly stated that you were not referring to the Tomlinson case, I argue that his case is precisely comparable with this; I was inside that kettle, we could not get out, they would not let us.
It is serious, it is unjust, it is unacceptable, and no, it isn't inevitable because a great many other officers did not feel the need to clobber unarmed, non-violent civillians.
Hey man, sorry if I sounded harsh - was posting as I was replying elsewhere. It's just that using Hitler or the Nazis as an allegory for other events can be problematic, as it's such an extreme example.