Home Politics & Debate
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

Video reveals G20 police assault on man who died

124

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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....

    I'm not sure that it's totally a different scenario and different people, both involved left-wing groups who have latched onto 'popular' protests where the majority of people aren't up for a ruck (Gaza and Climate Change - though it's also worth noting that it wasn't only the Climate Change groups who were at G20). We judge things according to our past experience, the police as well as everyone else, and as we saw not all demonstrators were peaceful, and even peaceful protests can easily degenerate into a bloody mob.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01376/rbs-window-compute_1376837c.jpg

    In this case it seems the tactics were wrong/worked almost perfectly, but given the criticism the police will probably handle the next big demo more sensitively, which will then kick off and the peelers will be criticised for not doing enough to stop it. So they'll police the next one more proactively. It's a seesaw - it usually is.

    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

    The difference between Tomlinson and these two incidents isn't the injury, but the context. Tomlinson was walking away hands in pockets, the first protestor looked like he was pushing against a riot shield and the second was in the middle of the police trying to clear.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    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.


    Erm, no I'm not.

    I've said previously that the actions of the cop in THAT instance are well out of order.

    But let's recap what we KNOW in both incidents.

    There is a possibility that Tomlinson was causing problems immediately before the video, if that is the case he should have been arrested.
    We KNOW he was walking away.
    We KNOW he was pushed for no apparent reason.
    We KNOW he got up and walked away.
    We KNOW he later died from internal bleeding.

    We don't KNOW that the internal bleeding was a result of the push, exacerbated by the push, or completely unrelated due to Tomlinson having God knows how many pre-existing conditions caused by alcohol.

    Like I said, the cop should have arrested him, or left him alone so his actions were unacceptable.

    As for the woman...
    We KNOW she was pushing the cop first.
    We KNOW she was swearing at him.
    We KNOW this was in the middle of a public disorder.
    We KNOW he responded by slapping her.
    We KNOW she came back for more.
    We KNOW he struck her with a baton.

    At the moment the evidence suggests Tomlinson was totally innocent. The same cannot be said for her. Everybody knows you don't start shoving a riot cop around in the middle of a riot. Yes, his reactions were probably over the top, he should have nicked her but a lot of you are suggesting she is also entirely blameless, which she isn't. Yes she probably didn't deserve to be struck with a baton, but if she hadn't been in his face screaming at him she probably wouldn't have been either.
    The cop who was involved with Tomlinson does not deserve to wear the uniform and should, after the investigation be sacked, as his was an unprovoked attack.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Whowhere wrote: »
    As for the woman...
    We KNOW she was pushing the cop first.
    We KNOW she was swearing at him.
    We KNOW this was in the middle of a riot.
    We KNOW he responded by slapping her.
    We KNOW she came back for more.
    We KNOW he struck her with a baton.

    Well this video suggest that she wasn't pushing the cop first and I see a protest going on but not much rioting.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM

    She came back for more? It comes across that you think she deserved it?
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Everybody knows you don't start shoving a riot cop around in the middle of a riot. Yes, his reactions were probably over the top, he should have nicked her but a lot of you are suggesting she is also entirely blameless, which she isn't. She caused her own problems, she is responsible for the end result.

    Again where the evidence to suggest she was shoving him and a protest is not the same thing as a riot. He should have ncked her? What for?
    By suggesting that the blame lies with her your saying that a backhanded slap and baton strike is perfectly acceptable response for a copper to use on somebnody remonstrating with them.

    It wrong.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She wasn't "remonstrating" with him. She was getting in his face despite being told to get back, shoving him and swearing at him.
    He clearly told her to get back. She didn't. He slapped her and again told her to go away, she didn't.

    At that point he SHOULD have arrested her for a public order offence or for breach of the peace. Instead he took his baton out and struck her with it, something I already said he shouldn't have done.

    The slap, or a push were acceptable, the baton strike wasn't.

    I'm not suggesting she deserved it, I'm suggesting that if she had got back out of his face the first time, nothing else would have happened.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I'm quite disgusted by the fact that a Police officer was murdered in cold blood for trying to arrest some armed robbers around the same time and pretty much fuck all has been said about it.

    I agree, the incident where the police officer lost their life doing their job was awful. It is when anyone dies doing their job, but it is a risk that police officers, lifeguards, soldiers and the like take.

    If you can't understand the difference between a police officer murdering someone at a protest (attacking him like that is GBH with intent, if those injuries killed him, as seems likely, it is murder) and a specialist firearms officer dying in a gun battle then you're a complete tool.
    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.

    Oh, sorry, there's no argument at all. You ARE a complete tool.

    There's no possibly about it: he was attacked without provocation and then he died. If you don't think that's causal you're a cretin. If you think that by wanting to get out of the kettle he's deserving of a beating then you should be summarily dismissed from your job, as should any other copper with that view.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »


    Oh, sorry, there's no argument at all. You ARE a complete tool.

    There's no possibly about it: he was attacked without provocation and then he died. If you don't think that's causal you're a cretin. If you think that by wanting to get out of the kettle he's deserving of a beating then you should be summarily dismissed from your job, as should any other copper with that view.



    I've not once said that the cops actions were acceptable, I've not once said that Tomlinson deserved ANY of what he got. All I said was that there is NO FUCKING PROOF that Tomlinson's internal bleeding was caused directly by being pushed over. Until the coroner finishes, all we know is that it was a possibility.

    And you need to learn some law. Pushing someone over, regardless of the end result is a common assault, not GBH with intent. If the push caused his death than it is manslaughter, ie ACCIDENTAL DEATH. You're acting just as bad as the sensationalist reporters who write for the Sun and the Mail.

    And if you can't write anything without resorting to calling someone a cretin or a tool simply because you disagree with them then you need to reassess your life.

    but it is a risk that police officers, lifeguards, soldiers and the like take.


    Exactly, a risk we take. You're happy for us to keep taking those risks so you sleep safe at night, you're equally as dismissive if one of us dies because that's "our job", something we should expect, you're suggesting we only have ourselves to blame because that's the life we chose, somehow we deserve it.

    But when one of us makes a monumental mistake that will haunt us for the rest of our life, you're happy to rip us apart, criticise everything we ever did and ever could do, call us "fucking pigs", "agents of the state", "nazis" and throw us to the wolves. Thanks.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The difference between Tomlinson and these two incidents isn't the injury, but the context. Tomlinson was walking away hands in pockets, the first protestor looked like he was pushing against a riot shield and the second was in the middle of the police trying to clear.

    Oh of course and quite rightly the valiant officer of the law, who of course wasn't himself 'up for a ruck' at all, had to use this force against an unarmed civilian...but of course those who are on the receiving end can't possibly understand the context of violence; only those designated individuals who are sanctioned to use it are able to do that...

    You've dodged the argument here- the man could NOT reasonably get out the way, and the people didn't step up to the police by the way, the police stepped up to them and closed them in...they gave no warning to move, no dispersal order, so that argument falls flat for a start.

    I totally dispute the fact that they it was neccessary for the officer to do this - look at the video, can you give me any precise indication of what this man was doing, so different to those around him, before the officer hit him. In addition, can you also tell me why this officer felt the need to do this, and others did not.


    I'm not sure that it's totally a different scenario and different people, both involved left-wing groups who have latched onto 'popular' protests where the majority of people aren't up for a ruck (Gaza and Climate Change - though it's also worth noting that it wasn't only the Climate Change groups who were at G20). We judge things according to our past experience, the police as well as everyone else, and as we saw not all demonstrators were peaceful, and even peaceful protests can easily degenerate into a bloody mob.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...e_1376837c.jpg

    In this case it seems the tactics were wrong/worked almost perfectly, but given the criticism the police will probably handle the next big demo more sensitively, which will then kick off and the peelers will be criticised for not doing enough to stop it. So they'll police the next one more proactively. It's a seesaw - it usually is.

    <note: link not working>

    Yes but if our judgment is too general our conclusions will be sloppy, as they were in the G20 policing. As for your claim about this group of agitators; the policeman on the outside of the corden told me that there were 'dangerous elements' within the Camp - I'd just been in there, singing 'we don't want trouble' in front of a police van (video available on request) with a bunch of others, and these are lies. Plain and simple.

    And things didn't degenerate into a bloody mob, but the police had been telling everyone that the end was nigh for a long time - no hanged bankers, not ONE assault in the whole of London on a city worker (oh wait, yes there was, from the POLICE), one smashed business, a bit of chalk on the pavements.

    Now, lets deal with the 'unpopular' claim - your notion of what is popular and unpopular, democratic and undemocratic is a little inconsistent in my opinion - when the police kettled at the Climate Camp, city workers, people just out generally, were coming past the kettle berrating the police.

    These people weren't involved in the protest, but they had clear sympathy for the ridiculous response involved.

    No evidence has been produced of evidence for anything except RBS.

    But still with the cynicism, still with the unshakable belief that these are just a bunch of reds that need a good beating. People are peaceful now, but a few more of these and they might not be.

    Exactly, a risk we take. You're happy for us to keep taking those risks so you sleep safe at night, you're equally as dismissive if one of us dies because that's "our job", something we should expect, you're suggesting we only have ourselves to blame because that's the life we chose, somehow we deserve it.

    But when one of us makes a monumental mistake that will haunt us for the rest of our life, you're happy to rip us apart, criticise everything we ever did and ever could do, call us "fucking pigs", "agents of the state", "nazis" and throw us to the wolves. Thanks.

    This is a good point - shouting at each other is not going to get us anywhere, and to be honest dismissivness of any death is reprehensible - from my observations, as I've repeated, the police were handling things well until they changed tactics, without warning, and closed people in.

    For me, this means that there needs to a large public debate about this, which must include police officers (at all levels) if neccessary, there should be some anonymity so that we get a decent view of how the police see their role in the community.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/19/ipcc-police-g20-protests
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Exactly, a risk we take. You're happy for us to keep taking those risks so you sleep safe at night, you're equally as dismissive if one of us dies because that's "our job", something we should expect, you're suggesting we only have ourselves to blame because that's the life we chose, somehow we deserve it.

    But when one of us makes a monumental mistake that will haunt us for the rest of our life, you're happy to rip us apart, criticise everything we ever did and ever could do, call us "fucking pigs", "agents of the state", "nazis" and throw us to the wolves. Thanks.

    Driving is a dangerous job too (far more dangerous than policing), and I'm happy to allow drivers do that as well, so that I get my fresh milk in the morning. When a driver dies in the line of duty, I expect it gets far less coverage and respect than when a police officer dies. And when a driver drives like a dickhead and causes an accident, the fact that he's doing a dangerous job shouldn't be an excuse, and he should get everything that's coming to him in terms of punishment. I don't see why the police should be a special case in this regard. I wouldn't call the reaction to the police officers killed in Northern Ireland recently as dismissive, even in areas where respect for the police is historically less than great.

    The comments about the police force in general refer to the circumstances surrounding the incident, and what seems like a widespread attempt at covering up of the facts and misreporting the incident to protect fellow police officers. Like I said, it's not the mistake, it's the widespread corruption that followed it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Driving is a dangerous job too (far more dangerous than policing), and I'm happy to allow drivers do that as well, so that I get my fresh milk in the morning. When a driver dies in the line of duty, I expect it gets far less coverage and respect than when a police officer dies. And when a driver drives like a dickhead and causes an accident, the fact that he's doing a dangerous job shouldn't be an excuse, and he should get everything that's coming to him in terms of punishment. I don't see why the police should be a special case in this regard. I wouldn't call the reaction to the police officers killed in Northern Ireland recently as dismissive, even in areas where respect for the police is historically less than great.

    The comments about the police force in general refer to the circumstances surrounding the incident, and what seems like a widespread attempt at covering up of the facts and misreporting the incident to protect fellow police officers. Like I said, it's not the mistake, it's the widespread corruption that followed it.



    I'm not trying to suggest that the Police should be a special case, if someone dies as a result of a police officer's lack of judgment then that cop should be punished.
    Likewise, my original point was that at the same time of Tomlinson dying a police officer was hit and killed by a getaway car which was deliberate. Now that was reported on for a day, and Kermit in particular seems to be suggesting that because he was a cop he should have expected to meet an untimely death at some point. Likewise I suppose Kermit also thinks PC Sharon Beshinivsky should have expected the same when she confronted an armed man, or who nearly died in the case of PC Rachel Bown. Neither of them were armed police, but they're in a uniform so they're fair game.



    I'll repeat it again though, because somehow it always seems to get lost in the translation. I do NOT think that the cop who pushed Tomlinson should keep his job. I DO think that if the EVIDENCE (don't forget we need that folks, but then why should we let the truth get in the way of a good story) proves that the internal bleeding was a result of being pushed then that cop should be put away.

    Until the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Tomlinson died as a result of the push then the cop isn't guilty of anything except common assault and acting outside his authority and like a tit.
    If the shoe were on the other foot (which it was when we were all screaming for blood when that chap who confronted the lads outside his house) and you were oh so happy telling us that it was an accidental death e.t.c you'd be saying exactly the same as me.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    If the shoe were on the other foot (which it was when we were all screaming for blood when that chap who confronted the lads outside his house) and you were oh so happy telling us that it was an accidental death e.t.c you'd be saying exactly the same as me.

    Who said that? I don't know the incident you're on about, but I'd be more than happy to see anyone who takes violent vigilante action in prison. Anyone who takes action in self defence, even if they confronted someone, is another issue. The people who are defending the police in this case are the same people who defend the likes of Tony Martin, or other vigilantes who are "teaching the yobs a lesson." And there are people who think that both of these police officers were justified. But I don't know of anyone who praises vigilantes, but criticized police for being heavy-handed. It seems to me that people are for vigilante action tend to be the type of people who would have no problem with a bunch of yobs in uniform replacing the police.

    But on the evidence, you say yourself, the only thing that evidence can prove now is whether it was assault or manslaughter. Our opinion of the police officer shouldn't change based on that, because that's merely a matter of luck. The fact that we all saw the assault should be enough to make a judgement about his conduct. If someone's driving like a dickhead and doesn't kill anyone, they should be regarded in the same way as if they did kill someone. It's just a matter of luck.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/19/police-intimidation-protesters-civil-liberties

    An interesting, concise and balanced editorial on the situation I think.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh of course and quite rightly the valiant officer of the law, who of course wasn't himself 'up for a ruck' at all, had to use this force against an unarmed civilian...but of course those who are on the receiving end can't possibly understand the context of violence; only those designated individuals who are sanctioned to use it are able to do that...

    You've dodged the argument here- the man could NOT reasonably get out the way, and the people didn't step up to the police by the way, the police stepped up to them and closed them in...they gave no warning to move, no dispersal order, so that argument falls flat for a start.

    I totally dispute the fact that they it was neccessary for the officer to do this - look at the video, can you give me any precise indication of what this man was doing, so different to those around him, before the officer hit him. In addition, can you also tell me why this officer felt the need to do this, and others did not.]

    I haven't dodged the argument Martin and could you stop accussing me, when I don't agree with you, of doing so. I am putting it in a wider context and trying to put forward an argument you evidentally disagree with.

    As to whether the man could get out of the way, you don't end up in the front by accident. They were grappling with police (and he got out of the way quick enough when he was hit by a blow to the head I might add). As to why the peeler acted the way he did - I don't know , I'm not in his shoes, but I have been in similar. I am assuming that you weren't in the police line either, of course....


    <note: link not working>

    rbs-smashed.jpg

    Hopefully this works, taken from a slightly different angle than the telegraph one
    Yes but if our judgment is too general our conclusions will be sloppy, as they were in the G20 policing. As for your claim about this group of agitators; the policeman on the outside of the corden told me that there were 'dangerous elements' within the Camp - I'd just been in there, singing 'we don't want trouble' in front of a police van (video available on request) with a bunch of others, and these are lies. Plain and simple.

    And things didn't degenerate into a bloody mob, but the police had been telling everyone that the end was nigh for a long time - no hanged bankers, not ONE assault in the whole of London on a city worker (oh wait, yes there was, from the POLICE), one smashed business, a bit of chalk on the pavements

    forgive the peelers if they are worried when people say that real bankers might be hung. Perhaps they should have just ignored that and even handed the lynch mob a rope.

    As for singing we don't want trouble, I'm afraid that doesn't mean a thing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrY2X1qM6N8

    Also I'm afraid the video evidence doesn't suggest that your claims of an entirely peaceful protest except for a smashing of a window doesn't hold up - unless of course you think that the peeler being helped to the van accidently hit himself whilst thumping innocent protesters.

    If you said there was some unjustified violence on both sides I 'd agree, as it is your view of it as peaceful protest where the only thuggery was by the police doesn't seem entirely accurate.


    Now, lets deal with the 'unpopular' claim - your notion of what is popular and unpopular, democratic and undemocratic is a little inconsistent in my opinion - when the police kettled at the Climate Camp, city workers, people just out generally, were coming past the kettle berrating the police.

    These people weren't involved in the protest, but they had clear sympathy for the ridiculous response involved.

    No evidence has been produced of evidence for anything except RBS.

    But still with the cynicism, still with the unshakable belief that these are just a bunch of reds that need a good beating. People are peaceful now, but a few more of these and they might not be.

    I could also say your view of democracy isn't consistent, but then that's true of 99% people.

    Also I think you need to read my arguments again if you are accussing me of saying that they need a good beating... my views are much more nuanced than that.

    I could equally characterise your views as 'All coppers are bastards' but that wouldn't be an entirely accurate reflection.

    I'm sorry if I'm being harsh about your views, but frankly your tone and can I say deliberate misreading, has really pissed me off.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who said that? I don't know the incident you're on about,
    .



    You'll have to forgive me because I can't remember the name of the guy. There were some idiots causing problems outside his house, so he went out and told them to clear off.

    They responded by kicking him to death.

    I mentioned it because i remember at the time, myself and others were quite vocal in that they should have been prosecuted for murder, not manslaughter.
    They may not have intended to kill him, but they certainly intended to do him some serious harm where death was a likely outcome.
    The words used were "as a policeman you should know that accidental death is manslaughter, not murder" or something to that effect.

    Now here we have, a couple of years later a man who has died after a contact with the police. The police officer pushed him, it was wrong but not really a serious assault on the face of it, one which he immediately got up and walked away from with no apparent ill-effects.
    A few minutes later he dies, and people on this board and in the media are calling the cop a murderer, that he comitted a GBH with intent, that the fact the guy died by accident is irrelevant.

    I was merely pointint out the turn of events and how it seems because a uniform is involved the law has suddenly changed, that evidence is irrelevant.


    Ultimately the man has died. POSSIBLY because of the cop, POSSIBLY because of a pre-existing condition, POSSIBLY a combination of the 2.

    Manslaughter? Possibly. Murder/GBH with intent? never.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aye, I remember the one you're talking about now. I thought you meant a bloke who killed some lads who were being abusive. If I know the law correctly (and I don't), you can be done for murder when someone dies after an incident in which you intended to cause serious damage to a person. So beating someone to death always comes with the risk of a murder charge, even if you never intended to kill them, whereas a single blow leading to death would only ever be manslaughter. Is that right? If so, I can see why the little shits could be up for murder.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So beating someone to death always comes with the risk of a murder charge, even if you never intended to kill them, whereas a single blow leading to death would only ever be manslaughter. Is that right? If so, I can see why the little shits could be up for murder.

    Unless you have a decent lawyer and you can persuade someone it was an accident.

    But you see where I'm coming from, the cop could never be prosecuted in law for anything more than manslaughter, because nobody could ever forsee someone dying from being pushed over, especially if he didn't hit his head on something.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.minimouse.me.uk/draxraid.mov

    OK then, what about this people.

    [Flashman]

    Link works - I'm actually pretty sure that the photo was taken by my mate as it happens!

    I am sorry if I've characterised your arguments as less nuanced than they are, but the balance of your commentary, while reasoned when it appears, also tends towards silence when you see something you don't like. Maybe I've missed something vital (always possible) but the silence is deafening on the rights of people.

    In any case I'm sorry if this has wound you up, its not intentional - I accept things can be read in different ways - I don't want to lose you as a discussion companion! :D

    But I don't retract the context of anything I've stated.

    You say you are situating things in context, ok in terms of the process of policing and the immediate context of the action but how about the wider social context exemplified by the video above? Sharmi Chakrabarti gets all kinds of horrendous slurs directed at her but she's bang on here - structural changes in anti-terror laws have conditioned police officers to behave in ways that are barking...

    Seriously, does this none of this worry you - do you really think this is just a swings and roundabouts thing of a self correcting system, or can you not see at least the possibility of a general and more sinister trend in this?
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Whowhere wrote: »
    She wasn't "remonstrating" with him. She was getting in his face despite being told to get back, shoving him and swearing at him.
    He clearly told her to get back. She didn't. He slapped her and again told her to go away, she didn't.


    She was remonstrating with him. There's no evidence at all that she shoved him in the video - have you watched it? Even If she did then she should have been arrested but I can't see anything in that video that is justification for what the copper did. Swearing is not a GOOD enough reason for the police to physically assault somebody. The back handed slap was unnaccptable, and the following baton strike even more so.

    That you're defending his actions I find rather shocking. I'm all up for the police using force where appropriate, but this quite clearly is wrong. You can't go around hitting non violent protestors just because they're shouting at you and and 'in your face' as you put it.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.minimouse.me.uk/draxraid.mov

    OK then, what about this people.
    [Flashman]

    Link works - I'm actually pretty sure that the photo was taken by my mate as it happens!

    I am sorry if I've characterised your arguments as less nuanced than they are, but the balance of your commentary, while reasoned when it appears, also tends towards silence when you see something you don't like. Maybe I've missed something vital (always possible) but the silence is deafening on the rights of people.

    In any case I'm sorry if this has wound you up, its not intentional - I accept things can be read in different ways - I don't want to lose you as a discussion companion! :D

    But I don't retract the context of anything I've stated.

    Okay fair enough. On my silence it could be that a) that I'm doing something else and don't get round to replying or b) an argument is going round in circles and I see no point in going over the same things again
    You say you are situating things in context, ok in terms of the process of policing and the immediate context of the action but how about the wider social context exemplified by the video above? Sharmi Chakrabarti gets all kinds of horrendous slurs directed at her but she's bang on here - structural changes in anti-terror laws have conditioned police officers to behave in ways that are barking...

    Seriously, does this none of this worry you - do you really think this is just a swings and roundabouts thing of a self correcting system, or can you not see at least the possibility of a general and more sinister trend in this?

    I have a lot of time Sharmi Chakrabarti, she's one of the few defenders of liberties who ever seem to see civil liberties in the wider context of dealing with violent disorder and terrorism (and realising that your liberties aren't just at threat from the state). However, in this case I think she's wrong - this has nothing to do with anti-terror laws, which in some cases are wrong and some not.

    It is to do with the old question of how you deal with large groups of people, and the interface between what is legitimate protest (even if includes some element of lawbreaking) and mob rule (even if contains some element of peaceful protest). If you look at the Miners and Wapping Strikes you can see the police both dealing zealousy with strikers and also standing back and getting a good kicking. Brixton/Toxeth vs Broadwater Farm, is another example, albeit in less organised outreaks.

    The peelers continually have to tread a line between the rights of some and the rights of others - how long do you allow protestors to block a road and impede others from going about their lawful business? How much damage do you allow before you make arrests? at what stage does a rowdy demonstration become a risk to public safety (of the demonstrators as much as if not more so than peelers and the people).

    There of course is the wider question of how far do we allow those who shout loudest to force the hands of the elected representatives - though I acknowledge that is a wider remit than that of the police.

    And in sending out the police to deal with public order (much better than the Army as witness the Peterloo Massacre) we're going to have to accept that they are human and that people in stressful situations (and you try wearing riot gear, a heavy shield and coping with a rowdy crowd) won't always act as plastic saints. And if the decision is made that the crowd need to be dispersed or penned in - it is much, much better to do it with such overwhelming force that you can keep control than so little force it degenerates into a running battle.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    But you see where I'm coming from, the cop could never be prosecuted in law for anything more than manslaughter, because nobody could ever forsee someone dying from being pushed over, especially if he didn't hit his head on something.

    Of course. On another forum, someone started a thread saying a policeman murdered someone, and everyone said don't be stupid. I don't think many people disagree that it would only ever be manslaughter at worst.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    She was remonstrating with him. There's no evidence at all that she shoved him in the video - have you watched it? Even If she did then she should have been arrested but I can't see anything in that video that is justification for what the copper did. Swearing is not a GOOD enough reason for the police to physically assault somebody. The back handed slap was unnaccptable, and the following baton strike even more so.

    That you're defending his actions I find rather shocking. I'm all up for the police using force where appropriate, but this quite clearly is wrong. You can't go around hitting non violent protestors just because they're shouting at you and and 'in your face' as you put it.


    Didn't I not say she should have been arrested? Did I not say that the baton strike was going too far?
    I'm agreeing with you and you're trying to make it out that I'm not.

    I'm defending his actions because as you can see from the video, it was a highly stressful situation and he made an error of judgment.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And to be far to police tactics they probably didn't want a repeat of this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtr-6sWgTEE

    or this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpTj4msfCVM&feature=related

    If the police really think the way to prevent trouble and rioting is by randomly assaulting peaceful protesters they're even more clueless than I thought.

    Serious trouble did not erupt at the G20 in spite of the police's behaviour, not because of it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8007580.stm

    And here come ACPO! Reminding us, that really, we should be thankful that they don't use water cannons, CS gas, rubber bullets and such on peaceful protestors.

    I can accept the part about having a balance in reporting, vis a vis the fact that not all police or even a majority as far as I could see were at fault; but my cynicism towards this body knows no bounds, and their deceitful nature has been discussed at length on these boards.

    I read the Inspector Gadget blog the other day, and for reasons of consistency I think it's important to bring up a point he raised - vis a vis, policeman dies, small coverage; woman slapped by Police officer MASSIVE coverage.

    Now I'm not saying the two should be switched - but this does seem even to me, to be disproportionate, in this particular case.

    The G20 policing is a vital public matter, exposing what I believe to be a wider unquestionning authoritarianism creeping into policing, punctuated by a man's death, THAT is the truly big story - but it's becoming a commodity like any other, and market economics will dictate this will probably snowball for some time to come.

    EDIT:

    In fairness to ACPO, it does appear as though one of their retired colleagues is starting to see some sense. His assessment of the mindset of officers encapsulates most of the dealings I have had with a police officers, except one (I am very sorry to say);

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/20/policing-relations-general-public.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    I read the Inspector Gadget blog the other day, and for reasons of consistency I think it's important to bring up a point he raised - vis a vis, policeman dies, small coverage; woman slapped by Police officer MASSIVE coverage.



    Funny thing is, I bring this up and I get ripped apart for being a tool and a cretin for even daring to compare them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well you certainly shouldn't have been insulted or flamed Whowhere. I would just say that while it is a valid point to talk about, it is perhaps a separate issue.

    In other words, it should not be a question of ''protester's death gets more publicity than policeman's'', but ''policeman's death doesn't get any publicity''.

    While any policeman dying in the line of duty is a undoubtedly tragic, any such death is more 'expected' (for want of a better word) and thus less newsworthy than a protester possibly dying because of the actions of the police. It is not unreasonable to expect some coppers and soldiers will fall victim of their respective professions' occupational hazards. However peaceful members of the public are not supposed to die because of an alleged assault by the police, who at the end of the day exist to protect the public. That is what makes the protestor's death far more newsworthy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well you certainly shouldn\'t have been insulted or flamed Whowhere. I would just say that while it is a valid point to talk about, it is perhaps a separate issue.

    In other words, it should not be a question of \'\'protester\'s death gets more publicity than policeman\'s\'\', but \'\'policeman\'s death doesn\'t get any publicity\'\'.

    While any policeman dying in the line of duty is a undoubtedly tragic, any such death is more \'expected\' (for want of a better word) and thus less newsworthy than a protester possibly dying because of the actions of the police. It is not unreasonable to expect some coppers and soldiers will fall victim of their respective professions\' occupational hazards. However peaceful members of the public are not supposed to die because of an alleged assault by the police, who at the end of the day exist to protect the public. That is what makes the protestor\'s death far more newsworthy.


    I agree, doesn\'t mean I have to like it. In doing so the media are attaching far more value to one person\'s life over another, when they are supposedly equal. The circumstances around both people are tragic. They were both approx the same age, both had lives which were cut short in a horrible manner. They should both be equally newsworthy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, it's not fair, and our press have been long at it. Whatever is flavour of the month or deemed more interesting by our 'opinion formers' will get given loads of column inches. Other cases come to mind, such as the bloke who got killed by burglars getting disproportionate amount of coverage (compared with anyone else being offed by an intruder) simply because he was a Chelsea-residing rich City banker.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Watching this http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/g-20-investigation-meets-blow-up/?hp report on Channel 4, don't know if any of you have seen it.

    Whilst it doesn't excuse the cop involved before I get flamed, it does give some insight into what was actually happening and the pressure these guys were under.

    It also flies in the face of the reports that the protestors were the ones outnumbered and being peaceful.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is significant, and actually I think the Police Federation may be thankful for this.

    Lets be clear - he could have killed that copper; that blow, so close to the temple of a person (not an officer, not a policeman - a person) who had no protection on - left him just as vulnerable as all other people in that situation without protection.

    What this shows is clear - violence begets violence - now what I am NOT doing is linking the two directly, but lets consider this; copper who hits Tomlinson is enraged by the assault on his friend. Person who threw the punch, is enraged by seeing the man hit his head on the door.

    I am sure that there were people, on both sides of that cordon, who just love a row.

    I wonder though, if the same could be said about the fact that, if you read the recent Monbiot blog (and for those inclined to be skeptical about his writings, I am only citing the matters or record here) his foot was impaled on a spike by private security guards after they can come directly from meeting with the Police, who turned around as one, and turned a very public blind eye to a serious assault. What would the affect be on someone witnessing that, because it's been well documented that the G20 is just one in a series of Police actions against demonstrators over the years in this country (and if we take Bishopsgate, as far as we know at the moment, peaceful).

    A policeman who's been to football more than once, or to a few of the more rowdy Gaza protests might be similarly affected.

    Both sides need to consider their actions, because the people who end up paying for it may well not be those involved (e.g: Tomlinson, the policeman who got hit).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jeez, the peelers were all over the place, no wonder there was violence; it becomes obvious they had no control over the situation. He's dragging someone back, there's several hundred protestors closing in on him and there's hardly a peeler to be seen.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8016620.stm

    Another none-too-bright member of Her Majesty's Conthuggery in hot water...
Sign In or Register to comment.