Print

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

[Proz]

"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  :-/

[TheBoy]

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?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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!!

[albitz]

dont agree,but not going to start the debate all over again.

[TheBoy]

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

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

dont agree,but not going to start the debate all over again.

[/highlight]

Oh go on Albitz..................lets make life interesting ......and controversial.......

[Turk]

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!!

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.

[miggy]

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.

[TheBoy]

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!!

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.

[Martin_1962]

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!

[Turk]

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 ?

[HerefordElite]

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.

[Turk]

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.  

[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...

[Turk]

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.