Disabled Protestor Jody McIntyre in Shameful BBC Interview

[lixxus]

they didnt need to use that much force though it was clearly unreasonable, as someone who teaches home office approved control and restraint techniques their is nothing reasonable about dragging someone and turfing them out of a wheelchair, it is clearly illegal use of force. If he was in danger they could have just picked him up or wheeled him out the way.

yet again the police show their true colours and demonstrate how unprofessional they really are! Hopefully the IPPC will crucify the officers involved

There is a big difference to teaching UDT in a classroom and applying it practically.

I cannot go into specifics as it is a restricted document, but there should have been someone to lift and carry his legs and someone to protect the head. even if he was not injured force still has to be reasonable.

I suppose that guy who got smashed in the head with a baton, the right wing ocuk would also think that was reasonable!

 

[Narj]

Reading this guy's blog is quite entertaining...

Eventually, around 30 of us managed to break our way through into the Treasury. Unfortunately, the rest never made it. A long round trip to make our way back into the crowd ensued, via Westminster Bridge and almost stretching back to Trafalgar Square.

We joined the music crew, which was weaving it’s way forward through the crowd. We were approaching the Treasury on our right; “That’s our first target,” I told my brother.

We headed back towards the Houses of Parliament, inside which “our” politicians sat cocooned in the bubble they refer to as “Prime Minister’s questions”. It would have been the ideal third target, but unfortunately, the moderate NUS block were in the way, standing around waving pink placards, and not doing a great deal.

Me and Finlay looked at each other. We knew that we had to make it to the front. Kareem started pushing the wheelchair again, and Finlay cleared a path in front of us.

Two rows from the front of the crowd, I saw a close friend, Jonte. He grabbed my arm. “This is so tight, we are going to break the police line any moment now.”

Sounds like he enjoys a bit of non-peaceful protest to me, to be quite honest.

Sauce: http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Urgh, you only have to look at the replies to this thread to see what's wrong with a large minority of OCUK posters.

It's not the protesters who go out with the intent of using violence, it's the police! if you were trapped somewhere, against your will, for being entirely peaceful then of course you're going to get angry. The police want you to be angry, because it gives the mainstream media an excuse to portray you as evil. Thankfully most people can see through this guise.

I must have missed the part at the numerous pre protest briefings that I been to where police were instructed to wind up crowds to portray them as evil.

With respect, you need to remove the blinkers.

 

[Tefal]

I must have missed the part at the numerous pre protest briefings that I been to where police were instructed to wind up crowds to portray them as evil.

With respect, you need to remove the blinkers.

You men you missed the "when the cameras aren't looking call them fat" part of the briefing?

But that's the most vital part!

 

[PermaBanned]

I must have missed the part at the numerous pre protest briefings that I been to where police were instructed to wind up crowds to portray them as evil.

With respect, you need to remove the blinkers.

In which case, why kettle them in? They were being perfectly peaceful, what about that makes the police think that their democratic rights should be restricted?

And why oh why sign up for a job where you aren't legally allowed to strike? That's just asking for people to **** you over.

Talking to officers on demos in Newcastle they say that most of them support us, one of them said that they had children too and it's simply atrocious what they're suggesting. As long as it stays peaceful, which as anybody who's payed any attention to the demo in London knows it did. UNTIL they were kettled in. What was the justification for this, can i ask?

 

[Danthus]

They were kettled because they deviated from the agreed route.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I'm sorry, they simply aren't normal questions, they're completely loaded!

This isn't about him being inferior, it's about him being equal. His disability doesn't afford him the ability to fight back and defend himself against this sort of atrocity, so those police use this as an excuse to assault him? They've done this time and time again, commit atrocious acts to intimidate the rest of the protesters.

Not all CB sufferers are the same.
I can show you people who could still do a lot of damage and Ben Brown obviously knew there are different levels of this disability and probed him.
The Police are also aware that just because someone is wheelchair bound it could make them strong as an ox.
I've done gigs for a local wheelchair basketball team and I wouldn't argue with any of them.

 

[Danthus]

Thinking about it they should have left him there in his chair, 3 points and a £60 fine may make him think twice in the future.

 

[PermaBanned]

They were kettled because they deviated from the agreed route.

There can't have been an agreed route because the demo had no single organizer, it was a spontaneous gathering. Unless they cleared it with all 40,000 people before hand, which i sincerely doubt, then it holds no significance to the majority of people there, who if my experiences are anything to go by may well not be aware that there was a route in the first place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/24/student-protests-childrens-crusade

What about demos where the police aren't even contacted before hand? If there is no 'agreed route' then they can't refuse them their right to protest. If there is then not following it does not constitute violence

 

[andi]

His stories don't add up.

He makes out in his interviews as if he was just sitting there and the police ran up and attacked him, yet in his blog says he was deliberatly blocking the police and they moved him out the way.

I turned in my wheelchair to face the police. “Move out of the way!” one of the mounted police shouted at me. I shook my head.

From the corner of my eye, I spotted one of the policemen from the earlier incident. He recognised me immediately. Officer KF936 came charging towards me. Tipping the wheelchair to the side, he pushed me onto the concrete, before grabbing my arms and dragging me across the road. The crowd of 200 ran and surrounded him. I got back up and stood in front of the horses.

Whether the force used was justified I don't think we'll ever know for sure, the full video (which is on youtube) has the camera pointing the other way, although you can hear him being told to move, only the aftermath is caught on camera, and thats what's being shown on tv. For certain, it was not a nice way to deal with him, but in the middle of a riot where police officers are being attacked, tbh, **** happens.

The BBC interviewer doesn't seem to be the biased one in that interview to me. He'd clearly read up on McIntyre's background, and thats why he asked those questions. McIntyre has his own motives and he's using his disability to further his cause, which I'm sure he feels is a valid thing to do, after all, he's compared the protests and what happened to him to Tiananmen Square on his Twitter.

 

[andi]

In which case, why kettle them in? They were being perfectly peaceful, what about that makes the police think that their democratic rights should be restricted?

Because when they're not contained, they run around the city smashing up shops, attacking members of the royal family and breaking into buildings? At least when they're contained, they can be controlled and the damage done restricted. We saw at Millbanks what happens when they can't be contained.

 

[Castiel]

stuff

hmmm Lixxus, They are not Police Officers as far as I am aware. Not only the police are trained in crowd control btw.

 

[The Funktopus]

This isn't about him being inferior, it's about him being equal. His disability doesn't afford him the ability to fight back and defend himself against this sort of atrocity, so those police use this as an excuse to assault him? They've done this time and time again, commit atrocious acts to intimidate the rest of the protesters.

Others could probably compose this in better, more diplomatic terms than me, but here goes:

It would seem that MacIntyre's disability varies in severity depending upon the situation whereupon he finds himself. "Inside Conservative Party HQ with only your revolutionary brethren to witness your heroic deeds in the name of class struggle Comrade!? Then let's sprint up these 18 flights of stairs while we smash up the Burgoise's ****!" However, in front of the cameras and on the BBC in the public eye, he's "a helpless little lamb barely able to raise his arms, caught between the bloody thirsty bad men and the children of peace, love and universal truth."

I am indeed paraphrasing somewhat, but to some up, he's either

A) A true class warrior, cunningly exploiting and exaggerating his disability in order to fool and smear the reactionaries when it suits.

Or

B) A narcissistic liar and complete douche, making up stories of heroic darring-do and sticking it up to "da man" in order to impress his knuckle dragging chums.

Besides, why single out a guy in a wheelchair to intimidate others? Surely you'd single out the hardcore "black block" types for that sort of treatment.

I know, the ruling classes are a right bunch of thugs

I see what you're trying to do there, but it most certainly wasn't the Police rampaging across London and smashing property left, right and centre, desecrating memorials and so forth last week. I eagerly await your reply loaded with "Police provocation" "Media bias" and other tiresome claptrap you roll out to justify such situations. (N.B. I Don't really)

 

[PermaBanned]

I see what you're trying to do there, but it most certainly wasn't the Police rampaging across London and smashing property left, right and centre, desecrating memorials and so forth last week. I eagerly await your reply loaded with "Police provocation" "Media bias" and other tiresome claptrap you roll out to justify such situations. (N.B. I Don't really)

Now that just simply isn't true, is it? Nobody was doing anything violent until they were kettled in. As for 'desecrating memorials', when no lasting damage was caused and it was of an extremely right wing regressive leader - it doesn't matter. Much like the fire extinguisher incident (which may well have been a plant, they did it enough in the 80's) the media pick up on these isolated incidents to distract from the big issue of the day. The actual reason for their being there and the atrocious acts being committed by those in power.

 

[Danthus]

I wonder what will happen on Saturday when various people target TopShop nationally.

 

[Narj]

As for 'desecrating memorials', when no lasting damage was caused and it was of an extremely right wing regressive leader - it doesn't matter. Much like the fire extinguisher incident (which may well have been a plant, they did it enough in the 80's) the media pick up on these isolated incidents to distract from the big issue of the day. The actual reason for their being there and the atrocious acts being committed by those in power.

Are you living in the real world?

So I can come over and spray graffiti all over your house, because it's not lasting damage and doesn't matter...?

A memorial is a memorial, how you can think it's fine to deface one is beyond me. If you're on about the Winston Churchill one, and agree with weeing on it or spraying graffiti on it, then I'm shocked. Things would be very different today had he not taken the action he did whilst in power.

And a flying fire extinguisher which could have killed either police officers or protesters doesn't matter either? If the protestors didn't act like tools then there'd be nothing to distract attention from the "big issue of the day".

Jesus...

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Now that just simply isn't true, is it? Nobody was doing anything violent until they were kettled in. As for 'desecrating memorials', when no lasting damage was caused and it was of an extremely right wing regressive leader - it doesn't matter. Much like the fire extinguisher incident (which may well have been a plant, they did it enough in the 80's) the media pick up on these isolated incidents to distract from the big issue of the day. The actual reason for their being there and the atrocious acts being committed by those in power.

With every post you sink deeper into self-parody.

Did you read the blog, btw? You didn't answer that pretty basic question.

 

[Danthus]

Now that just simply isn't true, is it? Nobody was doing anything violent until they were kettled in. As for 'desecrating memorials', when no lasting damage was caused and it was of an extremely right wing regressive leader - it doesn't matter. Much like the fire extinguisher incident (which may well have been a plant, they did it enough in the 80's) the media pick up on these isolated incidents to distract from the big issue of the day. The actual reason for their being there and the atrocious acts being committed by those in power.

Do you really believe that?

 

[Surfer]

Well, when I watched the interview I thought the interviewer came off as unnecessarily harsh, and perhaps a little insensitive. It was nothing to do with political stance, and was only to do with the interviewees disability insofar as his physical infirmities make him less of a threat. I had no reason to doubt his claim that he was "unable to move by himself", and had no particular reason to doubt that he was protesting peacefully.

However the blog excerpts make it clear that he was there to cause disruption, and is perfectly capable of moving himself around. That he is willing to make such claims on a public forum completely changes the context of the interview, and (in my eyes) makes the interviewer perfectly justified in pressing further for answers. I think that bringing up a few of these claims *made by the interviewee himself* would have brought a lot more balance to the interview, and would have given the public a better sense of what was going on.

It's an interesting situation. By not pressing him hard enough, the interviewer allowed the interviewee to paint himself as the victim quite effectively, and in doing so it seemed as if he was being unfairly badgered!

Pretty much agree with that spot on. I should have guessed though..the nature of the questions seemed so off that he mustve had other knowledge about Jody's activities (e.g. the blog) but yeah he shouldve pressed him more about that.

So Ben does himself no favours because lots of people, the public etc (including myself) were unaware of the blog and will sympathize with Jody not because we are jumping on some disability bandwagon (as Tefal mentioned) but because we had no reason to disbelieve what Jody was saying.

And the way Ben was questioning Jody was rather interrogational. its like this

If someone is raped do the police immediately ask them "Were they asking for it?" "Did she wear provocative clothes?"

"Did they do something to induce that person to attack them?"

This was the way Ben conducted the interview.

In other words by the nature of the questions it is turned around and blame is focused on the victim/person who is assaulted/attacked/manhandled.

Thats not right. (regardless of whether Ben or bbc feel that Jody is being duplicitious themselves - if they have information that THIS is so then they have an obligation to the public and to the truth)

 

[PermaBanned]

How you can think anything other than that the left will inevitably succeed is beyond me... just look at all the key moments in history, you think it's going to stop here for some reason?

A Conservative attitude just doesn't make sense.