This is why people are losing respect for the police...

[Roar87]

Please Daddy government, protect me from the woman silently stood still in a public place

 

[Haggisman]

Peacefully and silently standing there is not aggressive intimation or a "grey area".

Where do you draw the line? That is the grey area. What is acceptable to one person is not acceptable to another. Hence why there is a blanket "no protesting" area.

 

[Longbow]

Where do you draw the line?

Fighting words, blocking. Essentially in line with the First Amendment in the U.S.

 

[Haggisman]

Fighting words, blocking. Essentially in line with the First Amendment in the U.S.

So calling someone a murder and baby killer and shouting in their face that they are going to hell is OK as long as you don't get in their way?

 

[Longbow]

So calling someone a murder and baby killer and shouting in their face that they are going to hell is OK as long as you don't get in their way?

She was silently standing there. I'm not sure why you feel the need to go off on these unrelated hypotheticals?

 

[Haggisman]

She was silently standing there. I'm not sure why you feel the need to go off on these unrelated hypotheticals?

So where do you draw the line? Is silently standing there with a graphic picture of a dead baby OK?

You seem to be struggling to answer the question, which is basically my point

 

[PlacidCasual]

So calling someone a murder and baby killer and shouting in their face that they are going to hell is OK as long as you don't get in their way?

Except by her own words she wasn't doing that. I haven't read either the for or against articles since they were published but from memory she wasn't a "murderer" "baby killer" sort of protester. But I can understand and sympathise that even a sympathetic protester offering support not condemnation can be traumatic for women planning to terminate a pregnancy.

In this case the arrested woman was praying, "out of hours" and so not subjecting any women to any trauma. If we take her testimony at face value.

If we are going to discuss this woman specifically can we keep it to her actions and not the actions of other protesters, most likely ones in the US.

 

[Longbow]

So where do you draw the line? Is silently standing there with a graphic picture of a dead baby OK?

You seem to be struggling to answer the question, which is basically my point

I've stated where I draw the line. Other than that I'm not going to be drawn in by unrelated hypotheticals.

We are discussing the arrest of someone who was silently standing there, she wasn't doing any of the nonsense you're bringing up, so it's irrelevant.

 

[Haggisman]

If we are going to discuss this woman specifically can we keep it to her actions and not the actions of other protesters, most likely ones in the US.

I can tell you from personal experience that it absolutely happens in this country as well.

I've stated where I draw the line. Other than that I'm not going to be drawn in by unrelated hypotheticals.

We are discussing the arrest of someone who was silently standing there, she wasn't doing any of the nonsense you're bringing up, so it's irrelevant.

It's precisely relevant to this thread, because you're expecting the police to exercise their judgement as to whether someone is "peacefully protesting" or being intimidating, when the difference between the two is basically down to personal judgement in many cases.

Given that this thread is about people losing trust in the police, I think it's absolutely correct that such a decision is taken out of their hands (in potentially an emotive and stressful situation) and instead given to a judge (or at the very least a senior officer) who is able to make a calm and considered decision in possession of the full facts.

In this case (in my opinion) it is correct that she was arrested for protesting in a prohibited area, however it is also correct that she was later not charged after the circumstances were fully taken into account.

 

[doodah]

London Met doing their best to collect the full set of protected characteristics to institutionally discriminate. Sexism next.

 

[Caracus2k]

London Met doing their best to collect the full set of protected characteristics to institutionally discriminate. Sexism next.

As always its worth reminding people of how meaningless, nebulous and somewhat universal such allegations of 'institutional' stuff are.

Ultimately the police are tasked with a pretty unique job. Namely the use of organised violence, where necessary, to control and contain some elements of society. That will always be a daunting task and one that you will always find in hard to reach a wide consensus on as to what are the 'right' priorities and means to be employed to enforce them.

From the McPherson report


The McPherson report went to pains to state that sweeping statement could not correctly be made from its contents.

6.24 Furthermore we say with emphasis that such an accusation does not mean or imply that every police officer is guilty of racism. No such sweeping suggestion can be or should be made.

The authors of the McPherson report sought to address concerns that the use of the phrase 'institutional racism' would result in people, incorrectly, using the phrase to make sweeping statements that the staff of the MPS or the police as a whole were racist.

6.6 The phrase "institutional racism" has been the subject of much debate. We accept that there are dangers in allowing the phrase to be used in order to try to express some overall criticism of the police, or any other organisation

The commissioner of the MPS at the time, in one of his submissions to the authors of the report, raised concerns about the use of the phrase and his belief that people would misrepresent what it meant.

6.25 Sir Paul Condon himself said this in his letter to the Inquiry dated 2 October 1998:- "I recognise that individual officers can be, and are, overtly racist. I acknowledge that officers stereotype, and differential outcomes occur for Londoners. Racism in the police is much more than 'bad apples' . Racism, as you have pointed out, can occur through a lack of care and lack of understanding. The debate about defining this evil, promoted by the Inquiry, is cathartic in leading us to recognise that it can occur almost unknowingly, as a matter of neglect, in an institution. I acknowledge the danger of institutionalisation of racism. However, labels can cause more problems than they solve." Sir Paul will go thus far, but he did not accept that there is institutional racism within his force.

The authors of the report dismissed his concerns (and have clearly been proven to be wrong to do so in retrospect)

6.24 It is vital to stress that neither academic debate nor the evidence presented to us leads us to say or to conclude that an accusation that institutional racism exists in the MPS implies that the policies of the MPS are racist.
No such evidence is before us. Indeed the contrary is true. It is in the implementation of policies and in the words and actions of officers acting together that racism may become apparent. Furthermore we say with emphasis that such an accusation does not mean or imply that every police officer is guilty of racism. No such sweeping suggestion can be or should be made. The Commissioner's fears are in this respect wholly unfounded.

And the report was clear that it conclusions about 'institutional' racism were not ones that could at all be directed solely at the Police but rather ones they believed were applicable to 'institutions countrywide'.

6.39 Given the central nature of the issue we feel that it is important at once to state our conclusion that institutional racism, within the terms of its description set out in Paragraph 6.34 above, exists both in the Metropolitan Police Service and in other Police Services and other institutions countrywide.

 

[NVP]

Ultimately the police are tasked with a pretty unique job. Namely the use of organised violence, where necessary, to control and contain some elements of society.

Yeh, now I disagree with this being a fundamental part of their job, they're not military, so to use it as some kind of bligh is disingenuous. Also, it doesn't even fit with the rest of your post about not tarring all with the same brush.

Either way, I'm glad I don't live in London as the majority of shocking policing incidents appear to be from the met.

 

[Freakbro]

Well, 24 years on from the Macpherson report and nothing seems to have changed. So there's something institutional and systemic in their makeup and governance that isn't tackling the culture of racism, misogyny and homophobia that is being highlighted as endemic and not just 'a few bad apples' as it tries to be handwaved away by the usual suspects.

 

[doodah]

Mark Rowley was far from convincing on Sky News this morning.

 

[imtoooldforthis]

I don’t really know how they manage to avoid employing wronguns. It’s a job which will always appeal to these types because of the power it gives them.

 

[jpaul]

As always its worth reminding people of how meaningless, nebulous and somewhat universal such allegations of 'institutional' stuff are.

exactly once again a load of salacious individual stories - just like hancocks tweets say,

chowdry on r4today acknowledged improvements over last 5years ie Dick. so will they tell us about the recent situation rather than (like the cricket accusations) prehistoric accusations.

per normal r4today have sadiq on for his normal partisan party broadcast of indignation .

 

[CaptainRAVE]

A report that surprises no one. Pretty gutting for the many that I’m sure are good.

I don’t really know how they manage to avoid employing wronguns. It’s a job which will always appeal to these types because of the power it gives them.

Unsurprisingly one of our school bullies ended up joining the police.

 

[Haggisman]

Yeh, now I disagree with this being a fundamental part of their job, they're not military, so to use it as some kind of bligh is disingenuous. Also, it doesn't even fit with the rest of your post about not tarring all with the same brush.

Unfortunately it is by necessity part of the job, otherwise how are they expected to deal with members of the public who are being violent, either towards each other, or towards the police when trying to detain them? I'm sure they would prefer criminals stopped being naughty when asked nicely instead of having to risk being shot/stabbed/kicked/punched/bitten/spat on, but that doesn't seem very realistic to me

 

[danlightbulb]

I don’t really know how they manage to avoid employing wronguns. It’s a job which will always appeal to these types because of the power it gives them.

Do they start off that way or become that way be necessity as a result of the high demands of the job? These people have to intervene in drunken brawls, break into drug dens etc. They need to be tough people and clearly they will learn what types of people are more likely to be criminals than others, particularly relevant to the racism claims i think.

The misogyny issue is different, and is likely the result of the mostly male historic working environment so it should naturally improve over time. Remember some female officers appear particularly brutal in their thinking as well, again the result of the toughness requirements of the job.

 

[NVP]

Unfortunately it is by necessity part of the job, otherwise how are they expected to deal with members of the public who are being violent, either towards each other, or towards the police when trying to detain them? I'm sure they would prefer criminals stopped being naughty when asked nicely instead of having to risk being shot/stabbed/kicked/punched/bitten/spat on, but that doesn't seem very realistic to me

I've not disputed it occurring, only that it is a small part of their duties and shouldn't be used as the basis for an excuse around their failing.

Do they start off that way or become that way be necessity as a result of the high demands of the job? These people have to intervene in drunken brawls, break into drug dens etc. They need to be tough people and clearly they will learn what types of people are more likely to be criminals than others, particularly relevant to the racism claims i think.

The misogyny issue is different, and is likely the result of the mostly male historic working environment so it should naturally improve over time. Remember some female officers appear particularly brutal in their thinking as well, again the result of the toughness requirements of the job.

You appear to be equating toughness with idiocy.