sickening police violence

scorza · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:24

I see that Keith Vaz has praised the policing of the Sri Lanka/Tamil Tiger protest in Westminster today. Presumably this is the same protest I read about where the policing has been so ineffective that protesters have smashed their way through police lines and are currently illegally blocking traffic in the London rush hour :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8008044.stm - about 50 seconds in.

SexyGreyFox · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:30

scorza said:
I see that Keith Vaz has praised the policing of the Sri Lanka/Tamil Tiger protest in Westminster today. Presumably this is the same protest I read about where the policing has been so ineffective that protesters have smashed their way through police lines and are currently illegally blocking traffic in the London rush hour

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8008044.stm - about 50 seconds in.

OMG

I saw a policeman kick one of them.
Disgusting abuse of police powa.

scorza · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:31

dmpoole said:
OMG I saw a policeman kick one of them.
Disgusting abuse of police powa.

/Facepalm - didn't think of that. Don't worry, I'll write to the Daily Mail forthwith

Delvis · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:33

dmpoole said:
OMG I saw a policeman kick one of them.
Disgusting abuse of police powa.

Should have brought the tear gas out.

There is a barrier for a reason, so they don't go there, and so they can protest about what they want to in the given area.

SexyGreyFox · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:37

Delvis said:
Should have brought the tear gas out.

But they might rub their eyes and I wouldn't want to be the copper who has to explain that.

Delvis · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:42

dmpoole said:
But they might rub their eyes and I wouldn't want to be the copper who has to explain that.

They wouldn't have to explain...there is video footage of the protesters deliberately trying to break a police line that is there for their own safety.

So hey.

newbiejim · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:54

dmpoole said:
Come on, be serious now and stop messing about - do you really think the 'push' was violent?

Yes I honestly do believe it was violent.

newbiejim · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:59

AcidHell2 said:
so not the officer in question, any videos or real evidence?

Well we dont know, and witnesses are evidence. Anyhow, when u guys are presented with video evidence you seem to disbelieve your own eyes

AcidHell2 said:
Do you know the guidelines and what is acceptable in those guidelines? I don't. As other police officers in this thread have said, they are allowed to use force.

They are allowed to use appropriate force, this as has been discussed (and all evidence supports this) was not appropriate, briefly, he was pushed violently to the ground when he was NO threat AND he was where they were driving the crowd to anyway. Mainstream opinion supports this view.

SexyGreyFox · 20 Apr 2009 at 21:01

newbiejim said:
Yes I honestly do believe it was violent.

Have you ever been out of your front door into the real world?

newbiejim · 20 Apr 2009 at 21:06

dmpoole said:
Have you ever been out of your front door into the real world?

oh yes, I can assure you I have.

Glaucus · 20 Apr 2009 at 21:14

newbiejim said:
Well we dont know, and witnesses are evidence. Anyhow, when u guys are presented with video evidence you seem to disbelieve your own eyes

witnesses are poor evidence anyway.

if their is any chance that injury could have been sustained else where, it would be criminal to charge that officer with manslaughter.

So you don't know the guidelines and you don't know if it was justifiable as you don't know what the guidelines are.

Chimerical · 20 Apr 2009 at 21:25

dmpoole said:
OMG I saw a policeman kick one of them.
Disgusting abuse of police powa.

Haha. So much wit. Please, give me more. It's hilarious.

newbiejim · 21 Apr 2009 at 09:17

AcidHell2 said:
witnesses are poor evidence anyway.

if their is any chance that injury could have been sustained else where, it would be criminal to charge that officer with manslaughter.

So you don't know the guidelines and you don't know if it was justifiable as you don't know what the guidelines are.

First it was no evidence, now its poor :confused:

.

I know what is reasonable, and that wasnt. Do YOU know these 'guidelines', you speak of?

HEADRAT · 21 Apr 2009 at 10:45

Very interesting interview Denis O'Connor Chief Inspector of Constabulary on New24 at the moment:-

He seems to have grave concerns about the policing of G20, areas such as:-

Police not wearing their numerals so they can't be indentified
Kettling, the holding of people for long periods
That Police are their to "Guard the public" not serve to stifle political protest
The video footage that has come to light.

"What he saw was unacceptable" in terms of the woman being stuck around the face by the Police Officer.

Glaucus · 21 Apr 2009 at 12:04

newbiejim said:
First it was no evidence, now its poor .

I know what is reasonable, and that wasnt. Do YOU know these 'guidelines', you speak of?

Their is no evidence, I said witnesses are poor evidence.

No I haven't that's why I said I have no clue what the guidelines are and as such, I have no idea what the police are allowed to do in taht situation.

Sankari · 21 Apr 2009 at 12:24

It is "utterly unacceptable" for police officers to hide their identifying badges from the public, the in-coming Chief Inspector of Police has said.

Ex-senior Met officer Denis O'Connor, who is heading a probe into the policing of the G20 protests, said the police had to be "accountable".

"It is utterly unacceptable and that is that," he told the House of Commons home affairs committee.

Mr O'Connor will be looking into three cases of alleged G20 police brutality.

He will examine the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, as well as the tactics officers employed on the day such as the "kettling" of protesters, which sees them confined to a specific area for hours at a time.

He said he wanted to look at the whole picture of what happened, not just the "snapshots" seen in the media but he said he was starting with the "pre-conception" that officers should display their numerals at all times.

Constables and sergeants are required to display their numbers but senior ranks are not.

Some police officer removed theirs before the G20 protest because they were worried about false accusations being made against them and being filmed or photographed, but Mr O'Connor said he did not accept those arguments.

And he said his probe would look at whether all officers should be forced to wear name badges, which are currently not compulsory.

Mr O'Connor will also look at the widely differing tactics used by police forces in dealing with public order situations, from climate camp protests and G20 to the lighter touch displayed by the Metropolitan Police in containing the protest by Tamils in Parliament Square.

He said there had been no advance intelligence on violent protests ahead of the Tamil demonstration.

On the G20 protest, said the incident in which an officer slapped Nicola Fisher and hit her with his baton was "unacceptable" adding: "What I saw did not impress me that it's the British way."

Beeb.

Glaucus · 21 Apr 2009 at 12:32

Evangelion said:
snip

At least we got someone in the know now saying stuff. However it also said in the paper today, that the police officers have been trained to treat he public as an enemy and regard every situation as dangerous. So even though he finds it unacceptably, if that is the way they have been trained, you can't blame the officers, you have to blame the people who decide how they are trained and what rules they follow.

Will be interesting how his plays out.

Sankari · 21 Apr 2009 at 12:51

The police have well-established powers to use reasonable force if they think there is a threat either to themselves or the public, but these are enhanced during a protest or riot.

* The key concept is that of "reasonable force" - i.e. force that is in proportion to the threat faced either by the public, the police or property
* Thus "reasonable force" may literally range from putting a hand on someone's elbow, to shooting them dead
* The legislation governing police powers during demonstrations (mostly the Public Order Act 1986) must also be seen in context of human rights' legislation
* Under European human rights' laws the police are required to actively protect the public's right to peaceful protest
* Policing during a protest, therefore, is a negotiation between the rights of police to use reasonable force to protect the public, and their responsibility to allow peaceful protest to take place

Source.

The key point is "force that is in proportion to the threat faced either by the public, the police or property".

A baton to the legs of a non-threatening man who is actually facing away from police at the time... well, that's not exactly "in proportion to the threat", is it?

nex20 · 21 Apr 2009 at 13:27

Matter of fact is some people are just wrapped in cotton wool and just complain about anything. I dont think anything the police done is wrong, id do the same and if I was the protestors id probably expect to be slaped/pushed by a policemen if I was antaginising them on purpose especially when they are trying to deal with the esculating protests and violence.

To them people who think a push is violent... lulwut?

Chimerical · 21 Apr 2009 at 13:29

nex20 said:
Matter of fact is some people are just wrapped in cotton wool and just complain about anything. I dont think anything the police done is wrong, id do the same and if I was the protestors id probably expect to be slaped/pushed by a policemen if I was antaginising them on purpose especially when they are trying to deal with the esculating protests and violence.

To them people who think a push is violent... lulwut?

Your still missing the point which has been explained countless times in this thread.