Watchdog wrong in G20 CCTV claim

[mattheman]

Shields can be used to move people back when an area needs to be cleared. The Home Office says so and it is a tactic approved by them. The day they say it isn't, the police will act accordingly



btw what ?

Investigators made a mistake over CCTV. So what ? Either it is ocaught on CCTV or it isn't and even if not, it is captured on camera as we have all seen.

Who exactly do you want to have jurisdiction over this investigation ?

Thus far you have slagged off the police in general, the IPCC and no doubt anyone else who investigates. Perhaps one of the protest groups could instigate a clear and unbiased investigation.

Who exactly do you want to investigate this matt ? Will the IPCCs conclusion be enough for you, even if it goes against the result you personally want ?

So you say its normal to use the side of the sheild at head hight with force? did you see the video?

 

[int]

So you say its normal to use the side of the sheild at head hight with force? did you see the video?

Which video? The Ian Tomlinson video shows no use of shields in an aggressive manner.

 

[Liquidfox]

Nevermind, had the post open for over an hour before replying :/

 

[mattheman]

Which video? The Ian Tomlinson video shows no use of shields in an aggressive manner.

Another one unrelated, but wanted to point it out.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

So you say its normal to use the side of the sheild at head hight with force? did you see the video?

If a crowd is right up against the police line and the police are instructed to clear an area or a camp, the officer has a range of tactical options at his or her disposal, including the use of the shield, to move lines forward.

Passive resistance does not mean that force can not be used.

An example I give is if protestors were blocking a road and linking arms. They will be asked to move, and I hazard a guess that the people in that camp would have been given that option although if someone knows for sure then I would be interested to hear.

If they do not move from the road and refuse lawful police instruction to do so then force can be used. I am not talking baton strikes but the use and manipulation of nerve points for pain compliance. Again, this is a Home Office approved technique.


Does it look good on camera ? No. Do police in the main fap over using such force ? No. Is it lawful to use that technique ? Yes.

Matt, I have said enough on the subject. I do invite you to post that video on the following site which will likely generate good debate.

www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk

 

[mattheman]

If a crowd is right up against the police line and the police are instructed to clear an area or a camp, the officer has a range of tactical options at his or her disposal, including the use of the shield, to move lines forward.

Passive resistance does not mean that force can not be used.

An example I give is if protestors were blocking a road and linking arms. They will be asked to move, and I hazard a guess that the people in that camp would have been given that option although if someone knows for sure then I would be interested to hear.

If they do not move from the road and refuse lawful police instruction to do so then force can be used. I am not talking baton strikes but the use and manipulation of nerve points for pain compliance. Again, this is a Home Office approved technique.


Does it look good on camera ? No. Do police in the main fap over using such force ? No. Is it lawful to use that technique ? Yes.

Matt, I have said enough on the subject. I do invite you to post that video on the following site which will likely generate good debate.

www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk

Theres a big difference between using the face of the sheild to push, and using the side of the sheild as a hammer.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Theres a big difference between using the face of the sheild to push, and using the side of the sheild as a hammer.

To which the officers using it make a judgement call. There is a complaints procedure in operation should people wish to do so.

There are evidence gatherers on both sides and plenty footage would be available.

 

[mattheman]

To which the officers using it make a judgement call. There is a complaints procedure in operation should people wish to do so.

There are evidence gatherers on both sides and plenty footage would be available.

And in the situation like film the group had nowhere to go.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

And in the situation like film the group had nowhere to go.

Does that make the police action unlawful ?

 

[mattheman]

Does that make the police action unlawful ?

no because the law is always on there side, does it make it morally wrong, yes it does.

 

[int]

no because the law is always on there side, does it make it morally wrong, yes it does.

It's not morally wrong. Injury of a single person in such a manner is a lot better than a protest turning into a full blown riot where many people could be injured or worse.

 

[mattheman]

It's not morally wrong. Injury of a single person in such a manner is a lot better than a protest turning into a full blown riot where many people could be injured or worse.

So injuries on protestors are ok, injuries on police are not.

 

[theNude]

I actually saw the guy that died just before he popped his cloggs, he didnt look healthy at all, all red faced and sweating - was staggering from booze quite badly.

I dont think the officer was right to sack him to the floor however i am not sure if he would have survived if he hadnt.

 

[mattheman]

where were you, then you know what iam on about.

 

[int]

So injuries on protestors are ok, injuries on police are not.

Rioters are going to hurt the police, each other and the general public as well as cause damage as we saw.

If an officer has to show force as a warning to other protesters, then so be it. I'd rather see that than a riot