Brian Haw, peace protester assualted by cops

[Slinwagh]

I expect the inspector to take him seriously when he's quoting a badge number.

There was a public order incident happening at the time, it is very difficult to take the details and a statement required for a complaint while you are watching your back.

Four police officers forcing a passive protestor to the ground and cuffing him? Nothing wrong with that?

This is a perception issue, it is actaully safer for everyone the more officers there are as less force is required to effect the arrest.

you were stopped for speeding and the cops treated you in the same manner? Would you consider this entirely appropriate?

i wouldn't verbally abuse a Police Officer.

Forcing a passive protestor's head towards his knees while marching him to a police van is necessary... why?

Again, this is a perception issue, it is actaully safer for everyone the more officers there are as less force is required to effect the arrest.

OK, but aren't they supposed to give a reason at the time of arrest? If they did, I certainly didn't hear it.

Not always, but as and when they get to the custody suite he would have been informed as to why he was arrested, also the Police Officer would have to explain the arrest and then the Custody Sargeant and in turn he be happy with that explanation in order to authorise the detention of the prisoner.

 

[KNiVES]

True police brutality does not exist in this country,

That's fairly similair to Ahmadinejad proclaiming there are no homosexuals in Iran. You both quite clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Police brutality is rife in the UK.

 

[Teki187]

This incident occurred 6 days ago. The man in question is Brian Haw, a political activist who has maintained a legal, peaceful anti-war protest in Parliament Square for the past 5 years.

His account of the incident is recorded here in Wikipedia:

On January 12, Haw was at an unauthorised protest against the Serious and Organised Crime Police Act, outside Downing Street. Seven people were arrested (including Haw), Haw said "I was filming the students lying down in the road when one officer stepped forward, as I was walking back, and pushed the camera with his hand. It struck my face." He accused the police of using "violent and humiliating force".
​

The video is disturbing on a number of levels:

• The police inspector dismisses Haw and refuses to address his complaint, despite the fact that Haw was able to give the badge number of the police officer who struck him
  
  
• During the course of his arrest, Haw is unnecessarily dragged to the ground by four policemen (!) and handcuffed (why?)
  
  
• Haw is then forced to walk doubled over, with his head halfway to his knees, as the police bundle him into their van; again, what is the reason for this treatment
  
• When questioned by protesters, the police are unable to explain why Haw is being arrested

While I'm aware that the UK's Keystone Kops aren't exactly famous for their competence and professionalism (ahem, ahem, ahem), they appear to have plumbed new depths of thuggery in this latest escapade.

[*]During the course of his arrest, Haw is unnecessarily dragged to the ground by four policemen (!) and handcuffed (why?)

Standard procedure. If a suspect is struggling, you have to "retain control" using your body weight as means to hold him still to hand cuff him. Nothing abnormal there.


[*]Haw is then forced to walk doubled over, with his head halfway to his knees, as the police bundle him into their van; again, what is the reason for this treatment

Again, standard procedure. This protects the police from being head butt, spat on, puked on and also puts the suspect off balance reducing there chance of struggle etc.


[*]When questioned by protesters, the police are unable to explain why Haw is being arrested

They cant explain simply because you have nothing to do with the case, if you were related then you would get some information. You cant just walk into a police station, wait for a suspect to be taken in and shout "oi why is he being arrested" and expect a bloody full detailed description.

 

[stevenazari1]

video was edited, chances are edited to make the police look bad you cant say unless you was either there or see the whole film unedited.

it was probably an accident and he wanted to make something of it. you cant trust many people especially in london lol

 

[Teki187]

That's fairly similair to Ahmadinejad proclaiming there are no homosexuals in Iran. You both quite clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Police brutality is rife in the UK.

You need to differentiate between brutality and excessive force.

 

[fini]

To the people who are slating this guy: When you have the balls and determination to stand up for something you believe in as much as this guy does wheather you like his reasons or not, then come back and post a valid arguement against him.

You all sound like a load of sheep that want to be gagged

Firstly I'd question what balls and determination Brian Haw has.

Why was he originally there? After getting married he became a hippy and tried to shirk doing any work - travelling to 'trouble spots' so he didn't have to continue his 'man with a van' business or look after his kids. When he was at home he had to contend with ASBO youths every night so decided it was easier to go on an extending camping trip in central London.

Why's he there now? Liberty et al treat him like a superstar - his quality of life where he is - where hippies come daily to fawn all over him - is far superior to what he'd receive at home.

Valid arguments? I'd like to know how my arguments aren't valid. My arguments, as I've previously laid out are that he has previously, and in some cases still does:
(1) continue a protest, that a law was passed to stop, through a loophole
(2) cause health and safety concerns
(3)blights parliament square
(4)interrupts the democratic process

I think you'll find I've added a lot more real debate to this thread than your rolleyes have.

 

[Fiocca]

Fini
Valid arguments? I'd like to know how my arguments aren't valid. My arguments, as I've previously laid out are that he has previously, and in some cases still does:
(1) continue a protest, that a law was passed to stop, through a loophole
If laws were passed everytime we didn't like something, this country would become a giant prison.
(2) cause health and safety concerns
The amount of germs you and i come across everyday without noticing is just as bad.
(3)blights parliament square
So do all the cars and busses going around polluting the area.
(4)interrupts the democratic process
I'll be honest, i'm not read up on the subject so cant comment on this one.

 

[fini]

If laws were passed everytime we didn't like something, this country would become a giant prison

Indeed, and as this country is not a giant prison, this points to quite how important the government must have thought getting rid of this man was to choose to pass a law in his case. I'd point out the act received support from both sides of the house as well.

The amount of germs you and i come across everyday without noticing is just as bad.

Just as bad as someone who hasn't washed in 6 years - who there is pictorial evidence has been wearing the same hat for 6 years? If we forget about him, lets comment on all the rubbish he leaves in the square, or his placards that he leaves dangerously close to the roads. If we forget about them, why not talk about him turning the square into an open-air public toilet.

So do all the cars and busses going around polluting the area.

The cars and buses do not stay there for 6 years. The cars and buses do not display graphic imagery and profanities that frighten and upset children who come to London on trips. The cars and buses do not use photos of unrelated burns and torture victims in an effort to peddle their own political agenda. They do not scorch the ground and make a once tidy and pleasant place look like a tipping ground.

 

[@if ®afiq]

I think you'll find I've added a lot more real debate to this thread than your rolleyes have.

I think you have added nothing but your own personal hatred of the guy to this thread. Those "points" that you make not only show how much you dislike the guy, but also how little you know what democracy (freedom of speech, peaceful protest) is really all about.

 

[@if ®afiq]

Indeed, and as this country is not a giant prison, this points to quite how important the government must have thought getting rid of this man was to choose to pass a law in his case. I'd point out the act received support from both sides of the house as well.

The law that was brought about even prohibits reading out the names of the dead British soldiers outside of the houses. It has everything to do with stifling descent against the actions of the government and nothing to do with terrorism.

Just as bad as someone who hasn't washed in 6 years - who there is pictorial evidence has been wearing the same hat for 6 years? If we forget about him, lets comment on all the rubbish he leaves in the square, or his placards that he leaves dangerously close to the roads. If we forget about them, why not talk about the him turning the square into an open-air public toilet.

What is your point here apart from more personal attacks on him? Do you know where he goes to relieve himself? Does he leaves turds everywhere? Have his placards cuased any accidents in the last 6 years?

 

[fini]

Those "points" that you make not only show how much you dislike the guy, but also how little you know what democracy (freedom of speech, peaceful protest) is really all about.

I'll happily enter in to debate with you on the finer points of Dicey, Kant, Bentham and Roussea if you wish, but I feel this is off-topic. The thread is about Brian Haw being assaulted not constitutional theory. We're discussing his right to be there purely on the basis that, had he not been there, this incident would not have taken place.

I also disagree with the implication that Brian Haw's protest has been peaceful considering the amount of times he has been involved in altercations - including punching a tourist.

It has everything to do with stifling descent against the actions of the government and nothing to do with terrorism.

Did I mention terrorism? Rather than say the law was put in to stop terrorism, if you read my previous posts, you will see that I've consistently argued it was bought in to stop Mr Haw protesting.

What is your point here apart from more personal attacks on him? Do you know where he goes to relieve himself? Does he leaves turds everywhere? Have his placards cuased any accidents in the last 6 years?

The section you quoted was in reply to Fiocca on the point of his protest being a health hazard - he claimed that it was no worse than any other germs you might pick up during a normal day. Brian does not leave the square to relieve himself; if you need proof google Ken Livingstone's reasons for wanting to remove him. His placards have caused offence and upset to children - Brian even admits as much on his website. As to whether there have been any accidents I believe this is purely down to luck, actions of police officers and the removal of much of his display on these very grounds.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

Is he that old git with the dodgy hat?

Cant stand him. That'll teach him.

 

[Roland0]

Im mainly worried about the whole idea of media blackouts?


?

 

[WillyNelson]

Im mainly worried about the whole idea of media blackouts?

No blackout, just no one cares.

 

[Darg]

While I won't try to defend the man himself I agree wholeheartedly with supporting free speech in whatever form it takes.

I cannot over emphasise the importance of the quote from Voltaire made earlier in this thread:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. — Voltaire

If any one person in this debate disagrees with Voltaire then please let me know why.

Essentially this boils down to whether or not a person should be allowed to protest anywhere, anytime. I believe wholeheartedly that they should be allowed to so long as they do not infringe on another persons basic human rights.

The questions we should be asking is whether or not Brian Haw violated another persons basic rights.

Some might argue that his placards did so, they may be distasteful, they may be wrong to let children see but did they actually violate another persons basic rights? I don't know the full story, I've only heard of the man before in passing so I cannot comment. I would like people from both sides of this debate to comment on this.

Defecating and urinating in the street. I do not know if he does this or not, I would imagine if I was in a similiar situation I would ask for a bottle, pottie, etc...

Interrupting parliament, this is a tricky one, could he actually be heard from inside parliament? If so was it at such a volume as to disrupt them? I cannot support a law that says you cannot disturb parliament. With such a law a protest that the majority of the country agrees with could then legally be arrested just because it could be heard from inside parliament. That certainly cannot be right.


I am neither supporting nor condemning this man as I feel I do not have enough information on him either way. What I would like is for those here to address the point I made, has he violated other peoples basic civil liberties by making his protest outside parliament? If he has not then I fully support his stay there, if he has then he should be held accountable for doing so.

 

[WillyNelson]

Essentially this boils down to whether or not a person should be allowed to protest anywhere, anytime. I believe wholeheartedly that they should be allowed to so long as they do not infringe on another persons basic human rights.

But if you restrict based only on the infringement of human rights surely you're infringing on the protestor's human rights. Big, messy vicious circle.

Too much is made of 'human rights' with the "omg not letting me wear a crucifix in school is against my human rights" brigade. It seems like people think they have the right to do anything they want.

Incitement to commit murder does not directly infringe upon my (truly) basic human right to life, should it be allowed?

 

[Darg]

If I incited someone to kill you then I would be infringing on your basic human right to life. Perhaps not directly but indirectly I am. Through my actions you would die therefore my actions should not be allowed, it's quite straight forward.

Personally I believe that as soon as you infringe on another persons human rights you should be held accountable, that would mean a necessary part of your basic right to liberty would be taken away from you. It is up to people to decide how much of your basic rights to take away, that is why each person is judged by his peers through a jury.
It is really not a big messy circle. So long as you are not infringing on another persons civil liberties then you should be able to say and do what you want.

 

[sniffy]

It was a little excessive but hardly "assault". When you watch the news and see how the Kenyan police force deals with the general public, let alone hippies, you'll see we have it bloody good here in regards to the police. I can't say I find the average police officer particularly pleasant (always ask myself why they got into that line of work, seemingly seeking power most of them) but I still realise we have a good police force when compared with other countries.

 

[Hobgoblin]

It was a little excessive but hardly "assault". When you watch the news and see how the Kenyan police force deals with the general public, let alone hippies, you'll see we have it bloody good here in regards to the police. I can't say I find the average police officer particularly pleasant (always ask myself why they got into that line of work, seemingly seeking power most of them) but I still realise we have a good police force when compared with other countries.

funny. if i did that to a policeman i would be arrested for assault. and i think they would love to take my details pertaining the incident at that very moment. in fact if i did that to a bystander i would be done for assault. it is clearly assault by the laws of this country. not kenya. this country.

 

[Feef]

Personally, I like that he's in parliament square. As the seat of British democracy, it seems very appropriate. I think calling him a health and safety hazard, is, to be honest, absurd.

While police brutality may not exist in this country on the level that it does abroad, I know of a number of people hospitalised by the police, without having provoked them, and have some fairly sickening photos of people with heads cracked open after they broke up a house party. Compared to other countries, yes, we're quite fortunate, but to pretend it doesn't happen is simply deluding yourself.