Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Turk on 17 April 2009, 22:05:21
-
How about we keep this one as a "just for info, non-opinion, no reply" posting. :y
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=16155836
Edit: Oh what's the point ::)
Right, General Chat guidelines remember ! :y
-
"just for info, non-opinion, no reply" posting
Why ????? ::)
-
"just for info, non-opinion, no reply" posting
Why ????? ::)
Agreed............why no opinions................it was the Rozzer .....wot dun im in....................... ::) ::) ::)
-
The last thread on this subject started a war. ;)
-
"just for info, non-opinion, no reply" posting
Why ????? ::)
Agreed............why no opinions.
Charged with Manslaughter. The paper seller at g20 riot did not die of a heart attack, but from internal bleeding. That's just what I caught on the news.
-
Cautioned rather than charged I believe Mike. :y
-
Because on the last related thread some didn't abide by the General Chat rules. Just thought it best like this.
-
Cautioned rather than charged I believe Mike. :y
Sorry, yes you are right ::)
-
As was covered in the last thread before it all went tits up, there are good and bad in all organisations.
But, and a big but, do we know the full story, or are we all making are minds up on the short u-tube clip? What happened before? Why was it being recorded? I think we will never know the full story to this.
The copper in question, whether guilty or not, will get the book thrown at him, as the BBC and one of the Tabloids have gone a bit radio rental over this.
-
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X ;)
-
As was covered in the last thread before it all went tits up, there are good and bad in all organisations.
But, and a big but, do we know the full story, or are we all making are minds up on the short u-tube clip? What happened before? Why was it being recorded? I think we will never know the full story to this.
The copper in question, whether guilty or not, will get the book thrown at him, as the BBC and one of the Tabloids have gone a bit radio rental over this.
Fair comment. :y
But then again, several independent, unrelated sources for video footage. Ranging from Joe Public to official press, but nothing from the Met.
-
As was covered in the last thread before it all went tits up, there are good and bad in all organisations.
But, and a big but, do we know the full story, or are we all making are minds up on the short u-tube clip? What happened before? Why was it being recorded? I think we will never know the full story to this.
The copper in question, whether guilty or not, will get the book thrown at him, as the BBC and one of the Tabloids have gone a bit radio rental over this.
Fair comment. :y
But then again, several independent, unrelated sources for video footage. Ranging from Joe Public to official press, but nothing from the Met.
I suspect even if they did, they wouldn't use it - the media have already set this particular officer's future.
If the officer is guilty, I hope he gets what he deserves. If the officer is not so guilty - we don't know as there seems to be a lack of footage before this happened - then I feel sorry for him being made the scapegoat.
Remember how the media tried to play up the woman who got a beating as well (though backed down when more footage appeared)? ;)
-
Not seen much on the woman incedent. One of the papers had a photo of her wound on the front page. "Ouch !" springs to mind.
-
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
-
Not seen much on the woman incedent. One of the papers had a photo of her wound on the front page. "Ouch !" springs to mind.
......and she was reportedly paid £50k for her story!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Apart from that, :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
-
"just for info, non-opinion, no reply" posting
Why ????? ::)
I was kind of being a little bit naughty when i replied with this :-[... in light of recent events :-/
-
In the case of the woman, I think its pretty clear cut.
Everyone in the UK has the right to (legally and peacefully) make a protest. Problem lies in the fact some protesters, like that daft woman, think that means that is also gives them the right to give the police a load of face. How is giving the police large, who are trying to maintain order, going to help their cause?
-
In the case of the woman, I think its pretty clear cut.
Everyone in the UK has the right to (legally and peacefully) make a protest. Problem lies in the fact some protesters, like that daft woman, think that means that is also gives them the right to give the police a load of face. How is giving the police large, who are trying to maintain order, going to help their cause?
I thought I wouldn't say anymore on this subject..........but exactly right TB!! :y :y
-
dont agree,but not going to start the debate all over again. ;)
-
dont agree,but not going to start the debate all over again. ;)
The debate is fine, as long as it doesn't turn into an abusive slanging match between members :y
-
dont agree,but not going to start the debate all over again. ;)
[/highlight]
Oh go on Albitz..................lets make life interesting ......and controversial....... ::) ::) :y
-
In the case of the woman, I think its pretty clear cut.
Everyone in the UK has the right to (legally and peacefully) make a protest. Problem lies in the fact some protesters, like that daft woman, think that means that is also gives them the right to give the police a load of face. How is giving the police large, who are trying to maintain order, going to help their cause?
I thought I wouldn't say anymore on this subject..........but exactly right TB!! :y :y
Don't know enough about the woman incident really, but use of a batton is to protect an officer, colleagues and the public.
I doubt very much it is acceptable to use it to shut up a non violent, protestor that, from the little I have seen, made no aggressive advances towards the officer. Apparently until he had given her a back hander, she hadn't even noticed him in particular.
He gave no warning, just a back hander to the head and when she voiced her objection, he drew his batton and, again with no warning, struck her on the leg. What on earth was he thinking ?
The brief clip I have seen showed his actions to be perfectly natural and 2nd nature to him.
Giving it large, or put another way, voicing an opinion in a non violent or aggressive manner is peacefull protest, and is a legal right in this country.
I'm not certain, but I think this officer is also a member of the T.S.G.
The problem with these incidents is that in future officers are going to be treading on egg shells in these situations.
The uniformed thugs are making the work of level headed officers in a volatile situation even more difficult.
-
This relates to the poor guy that died.
There is lots to look at on this tender subject, the truth will come out an justice will prevail hopefully, I have been in many situations like this whist serving in the army in Northern Ireland, members of the public do get caught up in these situations even though they are not involved, when these situations arise the army/Police are under a great strain, i know thats when training should come into it but belive me, no amount of training can prepare you for these situations.
I also understand what the police officer must be going through and i also feel for the poor family of the guy.
It is a terrible terrible mistake on the PCs behalf but lets hope the full story comes out which ever way it goes.
lets think of the family of the guy.
-
In the case of the woman, I think its pretty clear cut.
Everyone in the UK has the right to (legally and peacefully) make a protest. Problem lies in the fact some protesters, like that daft woman, think that means that is also gives them the right to give the police a load of face. How is giving the police large, who are trying to maintain order, going to help their cause?
I thought I wouldn't say anymore on this subject..........but exactly right TB!! :y :y
Don't know enough about the woman incident really, but use of a batton is to protect an officer, colleagues and the public.
I doubt very much it is acceptable to use it to shut up a non violent, protestor that, from the little I have seen, made no aggressive advances towards the officer. Apparently until he had given her a back hander, she hadn't even noticed him in particular.
He gave no warning, just a back hander to the head and when she voiced her objection, he drew his batton and, again with no warning, struck her on the leg. What on earth was he thinking ?
The brief clip I have seen showed his actions to be perfectly natural and 2nd nature to him.
Giving it large, or put another way, voicing an opinion in a non violent or aggressive manner is peacefull protest, and is a legal right in this country.
I'm not certain, but I think this officer is also a member of the T.S.G.
The problem with these incidents is that in future officers are going to be treading on egg shells in these situations.
The uniformed thugs are making the work of level headed officers in a volatile situation even more difficult.
The clips I've looked at clearly see her going up to the officer, obviously confronting him, so he gives her a backhander, she then goes back for more.
Apparently this is a common ploy for planned protests where they want to cause a problem, as there will always be more protesters than police, so keeping officers tied up with a single protester allows more scope for other protesters.
In this case, from what little I know/seen, I would be on his side.
In the case of the guy who died, I can't find out enough unbiased info to draw comment.
Many of these protesters are not so much giving their voice of protest, but making certain things financially difficult for organisations and governments to do things - a tactic learned, it would appear, from the Newbury bypass.
-
In the case of the woman, I think its pretty clear cut.
Everyone in the UK has the right to (legally and peacefully) make a protest. Problem lies in the fact some protesters, like that daft woman, think that means that is also gives them the right to give the police a load of face. How is giving the police large, who are trying to maintain order, going to help their cause?
I am not violent but I'd have hit her!
-
Ok, so just to clarify, you say it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to physically assault a member of the public who is excercising their legal right to peacefull (non-violent, as opposed to silent) protest with no warning given, and when the assaulted person voices their displeasure (still no physical danger to the officer, even from a freshly sharpened screeching voice) you say he is justified in drawing his batton and again without issuing a warning, strike that non-violent protestor, hard enough to cause physical injury ?
-
Ok, so just to clarify, you say it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to physically assault a member of the public who is excercising their legal right to peacefull (non-violent, as opposed to silent) protest with no warning given, and when the assaulted person voices their displeasure (still no physical danger to the officer, even from a freshly sharpened screeching voice) you say he is justified in drawing his batton and again without issuing a warning, strike that non-violent protestor, hard enough to cause physical injury ?
no and no - it's a tough job to do and people in your face screaching at you can't be pleaseant but it's your job to keep cool (i couldn't do it but that's why i'm not a copper!), it is not acceptable.
analagy time: if someone starts screaming at me am i right to hit them with a metal bar? i don't think so. :-X
-
Don't mis-understand me. It wouldn't surprise me if that woman hadn't done a decent days work in her life and spent her time going from one protest to another.
In the brief interview I saw she came across as a bit of a damp whippet....but a police officer must remain calm and in control of his/her self, and act within the law at all times, even when struggling to keep control of a situation.
Keep your head, even when all around are loosing theirs. :y
-
Ok, so just to clarify, you say it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to physically assault a member of the public who is excercising their legal right to peacefull (non-violent, as opposed to silent) protest with no warning given, and when the assaulted person voices their displeasure (still no physical danger to the officer, even from a freshly sharpened screeching voice) you say he is justified in drawing his batton and again without issuing a warning, strike that non-violent protestor, hard enough to cause physical injury ?
As I always try to convey, try to look at the incident from both sides...
Consider it from the officers side. If it was you, and a highly charged stranger came into you face. You have every right to protect yourself. So you push (or slap) them away, and they come back even more highly charged? Would you use the tools available?
And also consider, yes she had every right to protest in a peaceful, non violent way. Her protest was against capitalisation of G20 - nothing that gives her the right to give a load of verbal to an individual just because its his job to try to maintain law and order.
Unrelated, but what do those protesters hope to achieve? If they want to change politics, they need to be on the inside, and by 'inside' I don't mean the slammer...
-
Ok, so just to clarify, you say it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to physically assault a member of the public who is excercising their legal right to peacefull (non-violent, as opposed to silent) protest with no warning given, and when the assaulted person voices their displeasure (still no physical danger to the officer, even from a freshly sharpened screeching voice) you say he is justified in drawing his batton and again without issuing a warning, strike that non-violent protestor, hard enough to cause physical injury ?
As I always try to convey, try to look at the incident from both sides...
Consider it from the officers side. If it was you, and a highly charged stranger came into you face. You have every right to protect yourself. So you push (or slap) them away, and they come back even more highly charged? Would you use the tools available?
And also consider, yes she had every right to protest in a peaceful, non violent way. Her protest was against capitalisation of G20 - nothing that gives her the right to give a load of verbal to an individual just because its his job to try to maintain law and order.
Unrelated, but what do those protesters hope to achieve? If they want to change politics, they need to be on the inside, and by 'inside' I don't mean the slammer...
Ear Defenders should be standard issue then ;D
I have to admit that when I see some of these protesters I think "Get a hair-cut, get a job, get a life". A few are there because it's a way of life (I don't mean the majorityof them), but none of the officers involved in assault incidents or their colleagues were in danger or had any need to defend themselves.
-
Ok, so just to clarify, you say it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to physically assault a member of the public who is excercising their legal right to peacefull (non-violent, as opposed to silent) protest with no warning given, and when the assaulted person voices their displeasure (still no physical danger to the officer, even from a freshly sharpened screeching voice) you say he is justified in drawing his batton and again without issuing a warning, strike that non-violent protestor, hard enough to cause physical injury ?
As I always try to convey, try to look at the incident from both sides...
Consider it from the officers side. If it was you, and a highly charged stranger came into you face. You have every right to protect yourself. So you push (or slap) them away, and they come back even more highly charged? Would you use the tools available?
And also consider, yes she had every right to protest in a peaceful, non violent way. Her protest was against capitalisation of G20 - nothing that gives her the right to give a load of verbal to an individual just because its his job to try to maintain law and order.
Unrelated, but what do those protesters hope to achieve? If they want to change politics, they need to be on the inside, and by 'inside' I don't mean the slammer...
Ear Defenders should be standard issue then ;D
I have to admit that when I see some of these protesters I think "Get a hair-cut, get a job, get a life". A few are there because it's a way of life (I don't mean the majorityof them), but none of the officers involved in assault incidents or their colleagues were in danger or had any need to defend themselves.
Hmmm, human nature to defend yourself. Remember, the police were outnumbered probably 100 to 1, protesters shouting and possibly enciting worse, plus they had probably heard on radio that other parts of protest had turned violent (smashing the shite out of RBS branch)?
If you look at the 2 clips featuring the protester getting a shield in the gob, if you look, the protesters are slowly forcing the police towards a wall. Why do protesters need to do that - their argument isn't with the police, but they turn on the police.
Another clip from same day shows protestors completely surrounding about 30 police. Why? Surely thats intimidation enough to get the police adreniline pumping?
The fact remains, why are protesters giving grief to police?
I do work with an ex-plod who was one of the ones put up in front of the miners in the 80s, and how is that whole saga misreported. The more vocal of the protesters, who are always the ones in your face, are the ones who will cause trouble, and will pull a knife - no wonder the police are on edge.
-
Ok, so just to clarify, you say it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to physically assault a member of the public who is excercising their legal right to peacefull (non-violent, as opposed to silent) protest with no warning given, and when the assaulted person voices their displeasure (still no physical danger to the officer, even from a freshly sharpened screeching voice) you say he is justified in drawing his batton and again without issuing a warning, strike that non-violent protestor, hard enough to cause physical injury ?
As I always try to convey, try to look at the incident from both sides...
Consider it from the officers side. If it was you, and a highly charged stranger came into you face. You have every right to protect yourself. So you push (or slap) them away, and they come back even more highly charged? Would you use the tools available?
And also consider, yes she had every right to protest in a peaceful, non violent way. Her protest was against capitalisation of G20 - nothing that gives her the right to give a load of verbal to an individual just because its his job to try to maintain law and order.
Unrelated, but what do those protesters hope to achieve? If they want to change politics, they need to be on the inside, and by 'inside' I don't mean the slammer...
Ear Defenders should be standard issue then ;D
I have to admit that when I see some of these protesters I think "Get a hair-cut, get a job, get a life". A few are there because it's a way of life (I don't mean the majorityof them), but none of the officers involved in assault incidents or their colleagues were in danger or had any need to defend themselves.
Hmmm, human nature to defend yourself. Remember, the police were outnumbered probably 100 to 1, protesters shouting and possibly enciting worse, plus they had probably heard on radio that other parts of protest had turned violent (smashing the shite out of RBS branch)?
If you look at the 2 clips featuring the protester getting a shield in the gob, if you look, the protesters are slowly forcing the police towards a wall. Why do protesters need to do that - their argument isn't with the police, but they turn on the police.
Another clip from same day shows protestors completely surrounding about 30 police. Why? Surely thats intimidation enough to get the police adreniline pumping?
The fact remains, why are protesters giving grief to police?
I do work with an ex-plod who was one of the ones put up in front of the miners in the 80s, and how is that whole saga misreported. The more vocal of the protesters, who are always the ones in your face, are the ones who will cause trouble, and will pull a knife - no wonder the police are on edge.
Yes TB, especially when you add the "terrorist threat" factor. Any of those protesters could have been suicide bombers there to attack very important G20 members of state, including those from the USA!
Every Met officer would be on high alert. Has everyone forgot London's 7/7/2005?? ::) ::) ::) 52 died! :'( :'( :'( :'( Next time it could will be thousands without 'strong' police tactics :-X :-X :-X
-
Yes TB, especially when you add the "terrorist threat" factor. Any of those protesters could have been suicide bombers there to attack very important G20 members of state, including those from the USA!
Every Met officer would be on high alert. Has everyone forgot London's 7/7/2005?? ::) ::) ::) 52 died! :'( :'( :'( :'( Next time it could will be thousands without 'strong' police tactics :-X :-X :-X
That is a valid threat, though the authorities must not be allowed to hide behind it.
There is a fine, unwritten, line the authorities need to tread.
I think the majority of officiers they throw out to face the protesters are doing a good job. As with any large org, you will also have some idiots (be they too wet to do the job, or too thuggish).
-
Yes TB, especially when you add the "terrorist threat" factor. Any of those protesters could have been suicide bombers there to attack very important G20 members of state, including those from the USA!
Every Met officer would be on high alert. Has everyone forgot London's 7/7/2005?? ::) ::) ::) 52 died! :'( :'( :'( :'( Next time it could will be thousands without 'strong' police tactics :-X :-X :-X
That is a valid threat, though the authorities must not be allowed to hide behind it.
There is a fine, unwritten, line the authorities need to tread.
I think the majority of officiers they throw out to face the protesters are doing a good job. As with any large org, you will also have some idiots (be they too wet to do the job, or too thuggish).
That is so true. As I have often stated on this site, the personal freedoms of a liberal democracy are being curtailed in the interests of "national security".
But do we want to be free, but dead, or restricted but alive? That must be the dilemma of any western democratic government in this age we live in. :'( :'(
-
I think the Mets senior officers statement of "We're up for it" was the green light the minority "Uniformed Thugs" needed. Why not go the whole way and have the officers chant "Come and 'ave a go if you fink yer 'ard e'nuff !"
As I have previously said, this is going to make any future situations like this so much harder for the level headed officers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8002022.stm
-
I was going to put the body armour on again when I noticed this general topic appearing again. ;) However, I was gratified to see that TB's comments echoed my own, made during the course of that infamous posting session :y
Controlling such large demonstrations is difficult, to say the least, and someone will cross the line at some point. When this happens the disciplinary procedure can be grim for the officer concerned. Every police officer understands this and every officer also understands that allegations of every sort can be thrown around with great ease, factual or not . Even so, they still try to do the job in the most professional way possible.
I made comments in a post started by Debs concerning the possibility of our slipping towards a police state. We are there already, in a de facto way. This is not the desire of the beat and patrol officer - but rather the reality when commanders become more closely linked with the political will than is healthy. There is too much political influence in policing now and these incidents will only serve to destabilise the essential covenant between the police and those who it is their duty to serve.
Please try to see that there might be much more to the selected images seen on the internet and on broadcast news than is immediately apparent :y
Mini rant over - assuaged by two fingers of Makers Mark over ice. ;) ;)