Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

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  
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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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  
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  

[TheBoy]

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  

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).

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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  

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.

[Turk]

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

[crazyjoetavola]

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

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

Mini rant over - assuaged by two fingers of Makers Mark over ice.