# Cop strikes woman at G20 on video



## albionism (Apr 14, 2009)




----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

Um.. I'm just seeing a random picture of police standing around.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 14, 2009)

It's the officer who attacked the small woman in this photo I think: 






There was a video to go with it but it seems to have gone from Youtube now.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

I really wish people would make an effort to explain what their new threads are about.


----------



## mr steev (Apr 14, 2009)

He seems to have his numbers obscured too


----------



## Clint Iguana (Apr 14, 2009)

These photos confirm what i have been thinking, the plod were not trying to control anarchist rioters, every photo i have seen appears to show them up against hundreds of paparazzi!


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

The whole video is here: 

There is an edited version here: 

There is a thread about it here: https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427427.html?c=on#c220573


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

Clint Iguana said:


> These photos confirm what i have been thinking, the plod were not trying to control anarchist rioters, every photo i have seen appears to show them up against hundreds of paparazzi!



slapping women in the face seems to grab the photographers attention.


----------



## rover07 (Apr 14, 2009)

Clint Iguana said:


> These photos confirm what i have been thinking, the plod were not trying to control anarchist rioters, every photo i have seen appears to show them up against hundreds of paparazzi!



These photographer rallies can get pretty rough...


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

So that's another violent cop out of control. Did you see how peaceful and calm everything was until the police started mixing it up?


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 14, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> The whole video is here:
> 
> There is an edited version here:
> 
> There is a thread about it here: https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427427.html?c=on#c220573



the inspector with the red trim i saw the next day being all nicey nicey .. while assults by his collegaues were going on behind his back lol .. he didn't 'see' any!


----------



## albionism (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> I really wish people would make an effort to explain what their new threads are about.



Sorry Ed..it was intended to be a thread depicting police offers who were caught in the act of being particularly brutal on April 1st....I should have explained.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

This was on April 2nd by the way, so no lessons learnt from the Ian Tomlinson events, which was what brought these people down to the Bank for the second day.

Where they faced yet more police thuggery.

Looks like the press are going to have a field day judging by the people sniffing for info in that indymedia thread.


----------



## zevion (Apr 14, 2009)

this footage has just been reported on the 6'O Clock News on BBC1 so it seems only a matter of time till the scumbag police officer is foundout.

they made mention of the fact he didnt have his badge on (which is against regulation), the slap of the face and then the batton smash to her legs

matter has now been referred to IPCC


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 14, 2009)

Come on, there were some there trying to get a reaction from the police, hence the scores of people carrying video cameras, hoping to get something juicy.
The woman and others, jumped on a minor incident where the black bloke was pushed, and deliberately  inflamed it, then screamed police brutality when they got a reaction from the police, what they were looking for.


----------



## zevion (Apr 14, 2009)

and here is a new report from the Times about it too http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6092671.ece


----------



## zevion (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Come on, there were some there trying to get a reaction from the police, hence the scores of people carrying video cameras, hoping to get something juicy.
> The woman and others, jumped on a minor incident where the black bloke was pushed, and deliberately  inflamed it, then screamed police brutality when they got a reaction from the police, what they were looking for.



police are paid to keep the peace, not to act like thugs when they feel 'threatened'. nothing justifies an assault on a defenceless, un-armed woman no taller than 5 foot. it's sickening


----------



## xes (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Come on, there were some there trying to get a reaction from the police, hence the scores of people carrying video cameras, hoping to get something juicy.
> The woman and others, jumped on a minor incident where the black bloke was pushed, and deliberately  inflamed it, then screamed police brutality when they got a reaction from the police, what they were looking for.


So dirty pig slags are just allowed to wallop people these days? Instead of reasonable restraint, like they show you on the telly visual box? You know, where they grab someone, wrestle them to the floor and cuff them. And she was only a little lass, that copper was a fair bit bigger than she was. He could have just grabbed her arm and cuffed her if she was being a naughty girl.

Take the rose tinted specs off, and you might actually be able to see what's going on.


----------



## Lakina (Apr 14, 2009)

That cop is such an arsehole - a real poser too.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Come on, there were some there trying to get a reaction from the police, hence the scores of people carrying video cameras, hoping to get something juicy.
> The woman and others, jumped on a minor incident where the black bloke was pushed, and deliberately  inflamed it, then screamed police brutality when they got a reaction from the police, what they were looking for.



Don't be a fucking idiot _again_.


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Don't be a fucking idiot _again_.



Why's he being an idiot?Cos you say so?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Why's he being an idiot?Cos you say so?



Not me, I didn't tell him to be an idiot.


----------



## Lakina (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Come on, there were some there trying to get a reaction from the police, hence the scores of people carrying video cameras, hoping to get something juicy.
> The woman and others, jumped on a minor incident where the black bloke was pushed, and deliberately  inflamed it, then screamed police brutality when they got a reaction from the police, what they were looking for.



Not much video on the net of protesters attacking police - I wonder why?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Apr 14, 2009)

From the Times.

The officer’s face is visible but, unlike his colleagues in the pictures, his number is hidden. *The shoulder epaulettes on his jacket look to have been covered up by strips of grey material.*

One for the miners' strike nostalgists


----------



## xes (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Why's he being an idiot?Cos you say so?



I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain.


----------



## dylans (Apr 14, 2009)

he's a real nasty. Look at the leather gauntlets he was wearing when he backhanded that girl. What a PIG.


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

xes said:


> I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain.



Explain please,I only have half a brain.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

Police to probe 'woman assault'

The Metropolitan Police said video footage on YouTube which appears to show an officer hitting a woman during the G20 protests would be examined.

The footage shows the woman swearing at a police officer who then appears to hit her in the face.

The officer also apparently strikes the woman on the leg with his baton.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said it had received a number of complaints about the action of officers at the protests in London.

A statement from the Met said: "The apparent actions of this officer raise immediate concerns.

"Once we were notified of this footage by a media agency this afternoon we began to take steps to identify this officer and are currently in the process of referring the incident to the IPCC.

"Every officer is accountable under law, and fully aware of the scrutiny that their actions can be held open to.

"The decision to use force is made by the individual police officer, and they must account for that." 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998976.stm


----------



## xes (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Explain please,I only have half a brain.



I know, it's plain to see. But I will try and explain it, nice and slowly for you.

Because he's feebly trying to justify why it's ok for a 6foot+ copper (or any copper for that matter) to 

a- give the young girl in the video a back handed slap, with nice big thick gloves on, because she stood up for someone else getting pushed around. And then 

b- to whack her in the leg with a baton (which can easily break bones) because she had the gaul to complain about it. 

Read the words here, try and put them together. See if any of the things you learnt at school come flooding back


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

xes said:


> a- give the young girl in the video a back handed slap, with nice big thick gloves on, because she stood up for someone else getting pushed around. And then
> 
> b- to whack her in the leg with a baton (which can easily break bones) because she had the gaul to complain about it



She punched him in the back or did you forget to see that part?I'd want to keep away somebody who chose to attack me when surrounded by hundreds of people baying for my blood.

Totally agree some of them were trying to get a reaction so that they could play the victim.


----------



## david dissadent (Apr 14, 2009)

.


----------



## Lakina (Apr 14, 2009)

xes said:


> I know, it's plain to see. But I will try and explain it, nice and slowly for you.
> 
> Because he's feebly trying to justify why it's ok for a 6foot+ copper (or any copper for that matter) to
> 
> ...




Looks like a pretty straight forward assault case - he clearly strikes her, she does not appear to represent any threat to him.  Difficult to argue self defence because she does not appear to be a threat.

Maybe he will get prosecuted now that its on the telly.


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

Lakina said:


> Looks like a pretty straight forward assault case - he clearly strikes her, she does not appear to represent any threat to him.



Again,selective blindness.She clearly punched him in the back


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Come on, there were some there trying to get a reaction from the police, hence the scores of people carrying video cameras, hoping to get something juicy.
> The woman and others, jumped on a minor incident where the black bloke was pushed, and deliberately  inflamed it, then screamed police brutality when they got a reaction from the police, what they were looking for.



Oh do fuck off.

A five foot tall woman gives a copper a bit of lip and that justifies him assaulting her?

The police are there to enforce the law. Not act outside of it. If she had commited a crime (giving a copper lip isn't actually an offence) then he has powers of arrest he can use. He chose to assault her. Big man.


----------



## xes (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Again,selective blindness.She clearly punched him in the back



and it must have really really hurt through all that padding.  

(((big nasty copsy)))

mother fucker needs to grow a spine.


----------



## Lakina (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Again,selective blindness.She clearly punched him in the back



There is no point on the tape where the woman is shown punching the police officer.  She has her arm stretched out at the beginning of the footage - this could represent a number of things, including gesture or self defence.  

Put it before a magistrate and let them decide.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Again,selective blindness.She clearly punched him in the back


I can't see any evidence of that at all. Even if she did, that does not give the copper the right to slap a small woman across the face and then strike her with a weapon. The correct procedure would be to arrest her. Without violence. 

Mind you, the fact that he appears to have his number covered is of serious concern and I'm delighted that it made the main BBC News today (notably they made no comment about her supposedly hitting him first). 

Cops acting outside the law deserve to be charged.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 14, 2009)

just watched that video again and if you look at the the end one of the FIT coppers present, who once again did nothing to intervene and presumably didnt report the matter, is Steve Discombe

he does get around


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Again,selective blindness.She clearly punched him in the back



Which frame? I can't see it.


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

Lakina said:


> There is no point on the tape where the woman is shown punching the police officer.  She has her arm stretched out at the beginning of the footage




Of course


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

cesare said:


> Which frame? I can't see it.



At 3:40 it's obvious,though off camera,she pushes him then on camera pushes him and he catches her arm.She then goes onto for a third time push/punch him and,imo,he attempts to bat her off at the same time as fending off somebody off camera.

Or maybe it's my eyesight


----------



## xes (Apr 14, 2009)

naah,I can't see it either. She comes close to him, but there's no arm movement to suggest that she's hit him or is about to hit him in anyway.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 14, 2009)

Are those gloves standard issue or are they another accessory like the balaclava on the pc who pushed Ian Tomlinson?

Accessorising and covering their numbers . . . it encourages rogue behaviour.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

Speaking of police without numbers, this video was taken on that day too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> At 3:40 it's obvious,though off camera,she pushes him then on camera pushes him and he catches her arm.She then goes onto for a third time push/punch him and,imo,he attempts to bat her off at the same time as fending off somebody off camera.
> 
> Or maybe it's my eyesight



'It's obvious, though off camera'

IE

'I'm going to invent shit to support my view'


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

xes said:


> naah,I can't see it either. She comes close to him, but there's no arm movement to suggest that she's hit him or is about to hit him in anyway.



And the BBC certainly aren't reporting it as such.




			
				The BBC said:
			
		

> The footage shows the woman swearing at a police officer who then appears to hit her in the face on 1 April.
> 
> The officer also apparently strikes the woman on the leg with his baton.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998976.stm


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

xes said:


> naah,I can't see it either



I'm not suprised

lol it matters not though because let's be honest he won't face any charges


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2009)

lol I'll just fantasize about what happened cause that way I don't look like a mug


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> 'It's obvious, though off camera'
> 
> IE
> 
> 'I'm going to invent shit to support my view'



No,you see the copper get jolted forward then this little woman appears directly behind him shouting the odds....Some would say she deserved a good slap


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> lol I'll just fantasize about what happened cause that way I don't look like a mug



Ye


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> ....Some would say she deserved a good slap



Anyone who says that deserves a good slap.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> No,you see the copper get jolted forward then this little woman appears directly behind him shouting the odds....Some would say she deserved a good slap



Twat.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Again,selective blindness.She clearly punched him in the back



Could you please point out at the time into the video she cleary punches him in the back. I have watched it twice now and can only see her getting hit off a reinforced kevlar combat glove then hit by a solid steel baton.

Or even better, a still captured from the video.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> No,you see the copper get jolted forward then this little woman appears directly behind him shouting the odds....Some would say she deserved a good slap


I suspect more would say it's time a misogynistic twat like you was kicked off the boards for good.

You have *no actual evidence* that she hit the policeman.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> No,you see the copper get jolted forward then this little woman appears directly behind him shouting the odds....Some would say she deserved a good slap



Pro Coppers United People's Front, I wonder why you are on this forum I think the forum that you are looking for is called the Daily (Hate) Mail.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> Some would say it's time a misogynist twat like you was kicked off the boards for good.



Hang on. I want to see where in the video she punches the police officer in the back.


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> At 3:40 it's obvious,though off camera,she pushes him then on camera pushes him and he catches her arm.She then goes onto for a third time push/punch him and,imo,he attempts to bat her off at the same time as fending off somebody off camera.
> 
> Or maybe it's my eyesight



I've just watched it again (no audio). It all looked relatively calm. Then black bloke approaches cordon and seems to be asking the cops something. Pans left and a white bloke seems to be doing similar. Pans right again and a couple of extra cops approach cordon line-up where black bloke is. Then altercation. Small woman tries to catch gauntled cop's attention, he turns round impatiently but at that point doesn't strike her. She remonstrates with him. He backhands her and starts to get baton out. She approaches again and he batons her across the legs.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

Go for it. He's getting right up my posterior.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> No,you see the copper get jolted forward then this little woman appears directly behind him shouting the odds....Some would say she deserved a good slap



they might, if they were you. But you are morally bankrupt and slightly quease-inducing.


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Hang on. I want to see where in the video she punches the police officer in the back.



3:40 onwards.Shoves him off camera,then tries to hit him again and he blocks her,then hits him again and he allegedley slaps her.All whilst been pushed and shoved from all sides


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> 3:40 onwards.Shoves him off camera,then tries to hit him again



Eh? 

This, by your reckoning, happened off camera, so how did you clearly see her hit him in the back - if he has been shoved off camera?


----------



## Intastella (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> 3:40 onwards.Shoves him off camera,then tries to hit him again and he blocks her,then hits him again and he allegedley slaps her.All whilst been pushed and shoved from all sides



So you state as fact something _not_ caught on camera (her shoving him) then say allegedly about something that _is_ (her getting backhanded)?

Fuck off, troll.


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> misogynistic



Bollocks!


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Eh?
> 
> This, by your reckoning, happened off camera, so how did you clearly see her hit him in the back - if he has been shoved off camera?


If she punched him, why wasn't she immediately arrested? There's certainly enough cops there to do the job?

And how come neither the BBC or any other media outlet, or any eye witness claims to have seen the punches that badco says happened?


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

I knew if I got badco to repeat his claim twice he'd fuck up.


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> No,you see the copper get jolted forward then this little woman appears directly behind him shouting the odds....Some would say she deserved a good slap



_Deserved a slap?_

Is that how you approach life? Small woman (your wife/partner/daughter) gives you some verbal justifying a good slap from you? Choice.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2009)

Of course it's fucking misogynistic to say a woman deserves a hard slap across the face from a copper literally twice her size because she supposedly shoves him.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Bollocks!


You've just said that the woman "deserved" a "good slap" for something _you didn't even see happen._

Why is that?


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> 3:40 onwards.Shoves him off camera,then tries to hit him again and he blocks her,then hits him again and he allegedley slaps her.All whilst been pushed and shoved from all sides



sounds like a bruce lee film.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> No,you see the copper get jolted forward then this little woman appears directly behind him shouting the odds....Some would say she deserved a good slap



so if a woman probably rightly had a go at you down the boozer would you respond by giving her a good slap

i really hope you dont have a wife/gf

although im guessing its quite likely you dont


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> sounds like a bruce lee film.



Only with more cameras


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

Ignoring, badco, I think a police wall of shame is a good idea for a sticky if it is done in a sensible manner without philandering, sorry, pandering to ACABers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2009)

weepiper said:


> Of course it's fucking misogynistic to say a woman deserves a hard slap across the face from a copper literally twice her size because she supposedly shoves him.



In badco-land this is logic.

Let's not forget how he denied any police wrongdoing in the tomlinson incident untill the video was made public, then shifted to Sun style smears about his drinking habits and living circumstances.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Only with more cameras



Stop the small talk and answer if if you have a minute; you'll probably avoid a ban if you can prove your argument enough to cast doubt.



> Eh?
> 
> This, by your reckoning, happened off camera, so how did you clearly see her hit him in the back - if he has been shoved off camera?


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Ignoring, badco, I think a police wall of shame is a good idea for a sticky if it is done in a sensible manner without philandering to ACABers.



I think the verb you're grasping for is _pandering_. Y'know, as in the police cars rather than Don Juan.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> You've just said that the woman "deserved" a "good slap" for something _you didn't even see happen._
> 
> Why is that?



Because he's a cock.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> You've just said that the woman "deserved" a "good slap" for something _you didn't even see happen._
> 
> Why is that?


Could you answer this please, badco?


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

cesare said:


> I think the verb you're grasping for is _pandering_. Y'know, as in the police cars rather than Don Juan.



You quoted my fuck up, show me up why don't you


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> you'll probably avoid a ban if you can prove your argument enough to cast doubt.



I've already pointed out where and what for to watch in the video.It doesn't even look like he makes contact with her tbh.

The giving her a slap comment was,i admit,a cheap dig


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> You quoted my fuck up, show me up why don't you



It was an atoll of mirth in a hitherto badco zone, what can I say


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> I've already pointed out where and what for to watch in the video.It doesn't even look like he makes contact with her tbh.
> 
> The giving her a slap comment was,i admit,a cheap dig



are you blind as well as nasty? he wallops her across the face!


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2009)

cesare said:


> I've just watched it again (no audio). It all looked relatively calm. Then black bloke approaches cordon and seems to be asking the cops something. Pans left and a white bloke seems to be doing similar. Pans right again and a couple of extra cops approach cordon line-up where black bloke is. Then altercation. Small woman tries to catch gauntled cop's attention, he turns round impatiently but at that point doesn't strike her. She remonstrates with him. He backhands her and starts to get baton out. She approaches again and he batons her across the legs.


With sound, she enters the shot shouting at the copper "you fucking hit a woman", and continues going after him in the same vein. So he'd already lamped her or someone else off camera. Scum. 

She wasn't gonna let him get away with it.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> I've already pointed out where and what for to watch in the video.It doesn't even look like he makes contact with her tbh.



I am not on about that incident, I am on about where she punched him in the back, after she shoved him off camera (if I am following you correctly). To put it simply, how do you know she punched him in the back if he was pushed off camera then hit?


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> I've already pointed out where and what for to watch in the video.It doesn't even look like he makes contact with her tbh.
> 
> The giving her a slap comment was,i admit,a cheap dig



Doesn't make contact with her - my arse. I hope someone twice the size of you decides your cheap dig makes you game for a "deserved slap" down the local or summat.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

it's all done with mirrors.


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> I am not on about that incident, I am on about where she punched him in the back, after she shoved him off camera (if I am following you correctly). To put it simply, how do you know she punched him in the back if he was pushed off camera then hit?



Sorry,it would appear it's the way I phrased.The person who pushes him is off camera and it would appear it was the woman in question who did the pushing....he was not pushed out of shot of the camera.Then she goes on to hit him twice more.

Out of this thread now.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

I am missing Eastenders for this crap. 

Laters.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Out of this thread now.



And more than probably the forum.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 14, 2009)

There is something really odd about that guy - he is not wearing the same uniform as the others, and is wearing those gauntlets, where all the others are barehanded, and he has no number on his shoulder. I am sure he will be identified, but I can't help wondering if he is even a real copper, because he just looks so out of place.

Just to add to the debate a little bit, though. Even if the guy had been pushed by someone, their training should teach them not to hit back. Shouldn't it? I think the police need to do some serious sifting out of their ranks, to get rid of loonies like this!


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

ymu said:


> With sound, she enters the shot shouting at the copper "you fucking hit a woman", and continues going after him in the same vein. So he'd already lamped her or someone else off camera. Scum.
> 
> She wasn't gonna let him get away with it.



Good for her. 

A few seconds earlier in the video, he suddenly appears behind the police line stage left. Kettle bouncer?


----------



## badco (Apr 14, 2009)

cesare said:


> I hope someone twice the size of you decides your cheap dig makes you game for a "deserved slap" down the local or summat.



They'd get a kick in the goolies


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Out of this thread now.


Don't run away. Answer my question please.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Bollocks!



Is it? you clearly relish the disproportionate result dished out by the big tooled up man on the small but persistent woman. You scrabble to defend it with the zeal that dung beetles track down piles of shit.
Your psycho-sexual issues regarding women and authority are a a psychiatrists paypacket imo.


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> They'd get a kick in the goolies



Yeah right. But she didn't do that did she? She was hit with a reinforced gauntlet then a length of steel. Here's hoping whoever gives you a _deserved slap_ for your comments is also tooled up to the same extent


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

Guineveretoo said:


> There is something really odd about that guy - he is not wearing the same uniform as the others, and is wearing those gauntlets, where all the others are barehanded, and he has no number on his shoulder. I am sure he will be identified, but I can't help wondering if he is even a real copper, because he just looks so out of place.



He looks like the kind of beefcakes the police force use on Friday nights, he does not look out of place, he looks very much like a policeman. Unless you have a very old fashioned idea of the police force. I thought you would know this being a trade unionist and that.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 14, 2009)

Guineveretoo said:


> There is something really odd about that guy - he is not wearing the same uniform as the others, and is wearing those gauntlets, where all the others are barehanded, and he has no number on his shoulder. I am sure he will be identified, but I can't help wondering if he is even a real copper, because he just looks so out of place.



the only thing odd that i can see is that he looks as though he is geared up to wack some protesters around. Numbers covered, gear on...........

theres no defence to this. IF the girl in the video done ANYthing she should have been arrested. there was enough police there to do that without Robocop giving her a slap and a baton to the leg. 

How anyone can say what "clearly" happened off camera is beyond belief. NO ONE can say what clearly happened off camera. what happened on camera is nothing short of assault.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

Even if she did punch him in the back it's not the response you expect off a highly trained police officer trained in anger management and people / communication skills.

Well maybe it is come to think of it.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 14, 2009)

A good comment from a BBC reporter on the 'incident', ''police can use violence but will have to justfiy it''. Having watching the video a number of times, for me the Police officer has done nothing wrong. She marched on him, verbally abusing him, and I can see her push/hit him in the back, and he turns around to defend himself and she got a back hander, he was trying to keep her away from himself, and she was a bit unlucky to get a slap on her face, he could have easily caught on the arm or somewhere else. 

It does not matter if she was 2 foot tall, she was inciting the people around, and still continued to advance on him after she got the slap, and so he gave her a whack on the legs, and she backed of then, and more importantly so did the crowd around her. She jumped on a very minor incident which she had nothing to do with, and seemed to be intent on trouble with the police.
She was lucky she was not nicked on the spot. Know doubt if she was, there be a thread slagging the police off for that.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> A good comment from a BBC reporter on the 'incident', ''police can use violence but will have to justfiy it''. Having watching the video a number of times, for me the Police officer has done nothing wrong. She marched on him, verbally abusing him, and I can see her push/hit him in the back, and he turns around to defend himself and she got a back hander, he was trying to keep her away from himself, and she was a bit unlucky to get a slap on her face, he could have easily caught on the arm or somewhere else.
> 
> It does not matter if she was 2 foot tall, she was inciting the people around, and still continued to advance on him after she got the slap, and so he gave her a whack on the legs, and she backed of then, and more importantly so did the crowd around her. She jumped on a very minor incident which she had nothing to do with, and seemed to be intent on trouble with the police.
> She was lucky she was not nicked on the spot. Know doubt if she was, there be a thread slagging the police off for that.



I don't agree with any of what you said but I'll respect it because you didn't fabricate or invent events, and that's all I am going to say to you.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 14, 2009)

Garcia Lorca said:


> the only thing odd that i can see is that he looks as though he is geared up to wack some protesters around. Numbers covered, gear on...........
> 
> theres no defence to this. IF the girl in the video done ANYthing she should have been arrested. there was enough police there to do that without Robocop giving her a slap and a baton to the leg.
> 
> How anyone can say what "clearly" happened off camera is beyond belief. NO ONE can say what clearly happened off camera. what happened on camera is nothing short of assault.



Yeah, that's what makes him stand out. He looks like he is not there to stand in a row with all the others in their long sleeved jackets with their numbers clearly showing. Looks like he just turns up, slaps a woman here and there, and then merges into the background, to go and thump someone else. 

All seems quite odd to me!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> A good comment from a BBC reporter on the 'incident', ''police can use violence but will have to justfiy it''. Having watching the video a number of times, for me the Police officer has done nothing wrong. She marched on him, verbally abusing him, and I can see her push/hit him in the back, and he turns around to defend himself and she got a back hander, he was trying to keep her away from himself, and she was a bit unlucky to get a slap on her face, he could have easily caught on the arm or somewhere else.
> 
> It does not matter if she was 2 foot tall, she was inciting the people around, and still continued to advance on him after she got the slap, and so he gave her a whack on the legs, and she backed of then, and more importantly so did the crowd around her. She jumped on a very minor incident which she had nothing to do with, and seemed to be intent on trouble with the police.
> She was lucky she was not nicked on the spot. Know doubt if she was, there be a thread slagging the police off for that.



Listen to yourself. Better a backhander to the face than a nicking.

No, really, listen to yourself.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> He looks like the kind of beefcakes the police force use on Friday nights, he does not look out of place, he looks very much like a policeman. Unless you have a very old fashioned idea of the police force. I thought you would know this being a trade unionist and that.



What is the relevance of my profession?

I just think he stands out from the others. I think he is a Special Cop of some kind.

Aw, Dixon of Dock Green - those were the days, eh?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2009)

There's another fella with the gloves on who shoves the black guy first.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

People will see a policeman slapping a woman and then hitting her for no apparent reason.

And whether the excuses work or not, more people will lose faith in the police and the power of the state to protect them.

I thought the aim of the aggressive policing of this demo was to prevent a summer of rage, not completely tear apart what little remained of confidence in the police.

It all seems a little counter-productive and I'm surprised officers can't see the effects of their actions, regardless of how confident they are of getting away with it.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 14, 2009)

So, a bunch of Special Thugs? 

Maybe it is just guys from a particular force who wear a slightly different uniform from the majority, and I am imagining that they are brought in as thugs? Only, the guy who does the slapping does appear to come from nowhere and then calmly leave again afterwards.  Why doesn't he calm leave after he was pushed, if he was? All he had to do was walk through that line of police, and the woman would not have been able to follow him. End of story. But no, he slapped her and then got his baton out. 

What about all the coppers who are doing these kind of things but are not on video?


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> A good comment from a BBC reporter on the 'incident', ''police can use violence but will have to justfiy it''. Having watching the video a number of times, for me the Police officer has done nothing wrong. She marched on him, verbally abusing him, and I can see her push/hit him in the back, and he turns around to defend himself and she got a back hander, he was trying to keep her away from himself, and she was a bit unlucky to get a slap on her face, he could have easily caught on the arm or somewhere else.
> 
> It does not matter if she was 2 foot tall, she was inciting the people around, and still continued to advance on him after she got the slap, and so he gave her a whack on the legs, and she backed of then, and more importantly so did the crowd around her. She jumped on a very minor incident which she had nothing to do with, and seemed to be intent on trouble with the police.
> She was lucky she was not nicked on the spot. Know doubt if she was, there be a thread slagging the police off for that.



If your version of events is true, he should have nicked her instead. Whichever way you cut it, he's either not capable of arresting a tiny woman without violence, or not capable of dealing with a tiny woman that doesn't deserve arresting, without violence.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

Guineveretoo said:


> What is the relevance of my profession?



Thought you would have seen that kind of thing before at demos and what not. He does look more ominous than the other police in the video but I don't think he looks out of place.



> I just think he stands out from the others. I think he is a Special Cop of some kind.



Maybe itis badco?


> Aw, Dixon of Dock Green - those were the days, eh?




Long before my time


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

Someone has put up a quite corrupted image suggesting that he is AB 42






http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427427.html?c=on#c220573


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

Mwahahahaha!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Thought you would have seen that kind of thing before at demos and what not. He does look more ominous than the other police in the video but I don't think he looks out of place.


Actually, I haven't ever seen anything like that firsthand, despite going to lots of demos. Partly that will be because I used to avoid ones which were expected to cause problems (since I am not only a coward, but was a single parent). 

But I was going to demos long before I worked for a trade union.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> A good comment from a BBC reporter on the 'incident', ''police can use violence but will have to justfiy it''. Having watching the video a number of times, for me the Police officer has done nothing wrong.


It is against the law for officers to slap women across the face. Police are not allowed to cover up their numbers. Police are not allowed to strike people who present no threat.

So that makes you wrong, wrong and wrong.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> It does not matter if she was 2 foot tall, she was inciting the people around, and still continued to advance on him after she got the slap, and so he gave her a whack on the legs, and she backed of then, and more importantly so did the crowd around her. She jumped on a very minor incident which she had nothing to do with, and seemed to be intent on trouble with the police.
> She was lucky she was not nicked on the spot. Know doubt if she was, there be a thread slagging the police off for that.



there were only around 200 people on that demo and it was completely peaceful

if shed been nicked on the spot then she would have been subject to due process, which is how the law works in this country, as opposed to summary corporal punishment based on the decision of random plod

there is no way the police were under any threat and its also clear that his actions excerbated the situation

its a crime pure and simple, if you are i had acted like that there would be no amount of mitigation which would have deemed the action acceptable - the fact its a copper makes it even wrose, they are supposed to be professional and trained to deal with someone giving them a bit of gip

you say a whack on the legs, but i have a friend who got a whack on the arm with one of those batons and was out of work for almost a year because of it - you appear to know very little about violence if you dont think that that could have caused serious injury

luckily the reaction from the met so far suggests that this particular twat will be made an example of, they need a sacrificial lamb and it looks like they just got one


----------



## scott_forester (Apr 14, 2009)

I love the guy who tells the camera crews to turn around because 'there's nothing to see here' it reminds me of the scene out of naked gun.

I'm a big supporter of the Police but people like this don't do them any credit.


----------



## Mooncat (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> It is against the law for officers to slap women across the face. Police are not allowed to cover up their numbers. Police are not allowed to strike people who present no threat.
> 
> So that makes you wrong, wrong and wrong.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

ITN



IPCC say they have "more than 120 complaints in connection with the G20 protests"


----------



## Clint Iguana (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Ignoring, badco, I think a police wall of shame is a good idea for a sticky if it is done in a sensible manner without philandering, sorry, pandering to ACABers.



FIT watch


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 14, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> ITN
> 
> 
> 
> IPCC say they have "more than 120 complaints in connection with the G20 protests"




IPCC also say that "the actions of this officer raise immediate concerns".

how the fck some people on this thread think this is acceptable policing is beyond belief.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2009)

There's jsut two people - one a copper and one a BNP supporter. That says it all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2009)

Garcia Lorca said:


> IPCC also say that "the actions of this officer raise immediate concerns".
> 
> how the fck some people on this thread think this is acceptable policing is beyond belief.



society encourages a craven attitude to authority 'please sir, can I have another slap?'


----------



## harpo (Apr 14, 2009)

Garcia Lorca said:


> IPCC also say that "the actions of this officer raise immediate concerns".
> 
> how the fck some people on this thread think this is acceptable policing is beyond belief.




Oh they are just attention-seeking. What else can it be?  There is utterly no justification for that thug's actions and anyone attempting to put one is just craving a bit of attention.  Stuck in the child-like state of not caring if it's negative, as long as it's attention.


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2009)

Sooo ... 

being as the police work to the principle that kettling is all ok as long as it's _proportionate _ ... do they have roaming kitted out cops that help maintain the entirely proportionate kettles or summat?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> society encourages a craven attitude to authority 'please sir, can I have another slap?'





> No man escapes when freedom fails;
> The best men rot in filthy jails.
> And those that cried "Appease! Appease"!
> Are hanged by those they tried to please.



(anyone know where that came from btw, it seems to be a bit of a staple of right wing conspiranut sites, but i kinda like it)


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

The name kettling and the technique came about because of the clearances of Jewish ghettos.

Nice.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> The name kettling and the technique came about because of the clearances of Jewish ghettos.
> 
> Nice.



http://tiny.cc/K7Qgt


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Someone has put up a quite corrupted image suggesting that he is AB 42
> 
> http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427427.html?c=on#c220573



I spent alot of time comparing pics submitted last night, and with that one, I think they've got the right man.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> The name kettling and the technique came about because of the clearances of Jewish ghettos.
> 
> Nice.



equally tactful was the fact the G20 policing operation was called operation glencoe


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> It is against the law for officers to slap women across the face. Police are not allowed to cover up their numbers. Police are not allowed to strike people who present no threat.



I think the consideration is "reasonable force". The case I suspect his lawyer would try to make is something along the lines of "it seemed like it was about to kick off, so it seemed like the best course of action to least escalate the situation". The prosecution on the other hand would argue that it was disproportionate, and there were other courses of action that would have been more appropriate.

(Personally I think the *most* it merited was a 'short' shove back. Or possibly just a verbal "move back". But that's just my opinion.

Denumbering is illegal in Scotland, but simply "Bad Practice" in England/Wales (so I read here). But I'm sure it would be taken into account in a case like this.

Regardless of all that, I think this should go to court, so it can be dealt with as best as our system allows.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

smokedout said:


> equally tactful was the fact the G20 policing operation was called operation glencoe



Then I propose a protest against police brutality called Snowdonia...


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Then I propose a protest against police brutality called Snowdonia...



err...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> Again,selective blindness.She clearly punched him in the back



Actually, what she's done is an admirable example of citizen action; she's used the minimum amount of force necessary to stop the policeman carrying out an assault on another citizen.
His striking her in the face, however, is *no* part of any officially-sanctioned control & restraint technique.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2009)

I think this thread needs a name change - now it's got onto the news people will be wanting to find a thread about it.


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> His striking her in the face, however, is *no* part of any officially-sanctioned control & restraint technique.



Quite. I think that actually weakens his possible defense more than the baton.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

smokedout said:


> just watched that video again and if you look at the the end one of the FIT coppers present, who once again did nothing to intervene and presumably didnt report the matter, is Steve Discombe
> 
> he does get around



He's consistent in his uselessness and inertia, isn't he?


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think this thread needs a name change - now it's got onto the news people will be wanting to find a thread about it.



Good move.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Are those gloves standard issue or are they another accessory like the balaclava on the pc who pushed Ian Tomlinson?
> 
> Accessorising and covering their numbers . . . it encourages rogue behaviour.



If they weren't standard issue he's probably binned them by now, especially if they were a nice pair of the weighted gloves you can buy from Silverman on the Mile End Road.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> 3:40 onwards.Shoves him off camera,then tries to hit him again and he blocks her,then hits him again and he allegedley slaps her.All whilst been pushed and shoved from all sides



Thing is, her supposedly hitting him isn't supported by the filmed evidence, where as his slapping and then batoning of her is there for all to see, so why the "allegedly" crap?

You're clearly a misogynistic saddo of a BNP fellow-traveller who can't distinguish there fevered fantasies from reality.


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

Sidenote: I've read that the balaclavas are standard issue for protection against petrol bombs; and seperately, in one officer's view, that given their purpose, there was no need for them on that occasion.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2009)

It just makes me very cross that people defend this stuff. After the cops start hassling the black guy in the background - you hear him saying "easy" and then the camera turns to show them shoving and manhandling him - the woman shouts at the copper in the foreground, he pushes her back, she approaches him again and he turns and deliberately (and audibly) back-hands her across the face, then clearly says "go away" afterwards. People start to shout, she keep on talking and pointing - actually not very close to him at all, there is clearly no danger, even if the fact that she's half his size isn't an indication of that - and he unfolds his baton, steps towards her and smacks her on the leg. She looks like she falls over then. Which you would, those things are not toys.

It just isn't open to interpretation. It's not an accident. There's no threat. It's physical violence used for intimidation. There aren't any two ways about it.


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> If they weren't standard issue



Probably were standard issue, but I'd have thought it was part of the 'full kit' they only put on when someone says to put it on. Maybe "Mr Slap" fancied 'a bit of extra' ahead of time. Smacks of "being up for it" either way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2009)

Given the shit I hear on the Wednesday from Jeremy Vines callers in (yeah I know), some folks think this is just desserts. They were calling for water cannons and baton rounds

How dare you exercise your right to peaceful protest


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It just makes me very cross that people defend this stuff.



Hope you don't mean me.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Hope you don't mean me.



Oh no, I was just generally ranting.


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh no, I was just generally ranting.



Cool.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> It is against the law for officers to slap women across the face. Police are not allowed to cover up their numbers. Police are not allowed to strike people who present no threat.
> 
> So that makes you wrong, wrong and wrong.



To be fair though, sonny61 has made it *abundantly* clear on the threads in P & P he's contributed to that he has little, if any, understanding of police procedure, military procedure (he had a hilarious rant about how the British army should invade Zimbabwe) or constitutional law.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

smokedout said:


> equally tactful was the fact the G20 policing operation was called operation glencoe



Mind you, at least if any branches of MacDonalds had gotten trashed, they'd have known to look for rioters with the surname "Campbell".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I think the consideration is "reasonable force". The case I suspect his lawyer would try to make is something along the lines of "it seemed like it was about to kick off, so it seemed like the best course of action to least escalate the situation". The prosecution on the other hand would argue that it was disproportionate, and there were other courses of action that would have been more appropriate.


The rule used to be (and should still be) "no blows above the shoulders", as there's far too much risk of damage involved in doing so. There are *no* control or restraint techniques allowed by the Home Office for use by police or Prison Service employees that includes striking to the face.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 14, 2009)

weepiper said:


> err...



Top UK police chief is found dead 

Michael Todd, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, disappeared while out walking on Snowdon, north Wales, on Monday night. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7290359.stm

Similar kind of thoughtless tact


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2009)

ah


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Come on, there were some there trying to get a reaction from the police, hence the scores of people carrying video cameras, hoping to get something juicy.
> The woman and others, jumped on a minor incident where the black bloke was pushed, and deliberately  inflamed it, then screamed police brutality when they got a reaction from the police, what they were looking for.



wanker


----------



## zygote (Apr 14, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Someone has put up a quite corrupted image suggesting that he is AB 42
> 
> http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427427.html?c=on#c220573


AB 42 is a sergeant with City Of Westminster Police based at Begravia


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Quite. I think that actually weakens his possible defense more than the baton.



Very much so, in terms of what he's officially allowed to do in that line. Batoning someone below the shoulder line is permissible as long as you don't aim for the genitals or the kidneys (although obviously some do!).


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 14, 2009)

My mole says News at Ten are going big on this; the woman being hit. So I'm off to watch it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Given the shit I hear on the Wednesday from Jeremy Vines callers in (yeah I know), some folks think this is just desserts. They were calling for water cannons and baton rounds


Most of them being wall-eyed pilchard molesters who've never seen up close what sort of carnage a baton round can wreak in a crowd, the stupid cunts.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> *She punched him in the back or did you forget to see that part?*I'd want to keep away somebody who chose to attack me when surrounded by hundreds of people baying for my blood.
> 
> Totally agree some of them were trying to get a reaction so that they could play the victim.



Are you fucking tripping or something?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 14, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> A good comment from a BBC reporter on the 'incident', ''police can use violence but will have to justfiy it''. Having watching the video a number of times, for me the Police officer has done nothing wrong. She marched on him, verbally abusing him, and I can see her push/hit him in the back, and he turns around to defend himself and she got a back hander, he was trying to keep her away from himself, and she was a bit unlucky to get a slap on her face, he could have easily caught on the arm or somewhere else.
> 
> It does not matter if she was 2 foot tall, she was inciting the people around, and still continued to advance on him after she got the slap, and so he gave her a whack on the legs, and she backed of then, and more importantly so did the crowd around her. She jumped on a very minor incident which she had nothing to do with, and seemed to be intent on trouble with the police.
> She was lucky she was not nicked on the spot. Know doubt if she was, there be a thread slagging the police off for that.



lol


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 14, 2009)

badco said:


> I'm not suprised



Yeah, you imagined it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> My mole says News at Ten are going big on this; the woman being hit. So I'm off to watch it.



On R4 just now they were very clear - they said he slapped her audibly, then took out his baton and hit her. No weaselling.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

Well there goes his career!


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 14, 2009)

.......... and on ITN it goes with "apparently" etc. 

despite being able to hear the slap on the video when they played it. 

Everytime you see this video it looks worse. the woman was not trying to get past him or approaching him when the baton was used. 

another cop suspended.... with full pay probably..


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 14, 2009)

Second item on News at 10, and trailed in the preamble.

Good.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 14, 2009)

enough bad apples to make shitloads of MetPol brand cider now


----------



## IC3D (Apr 14, 2009)

He looked very at home backhanding that woman like it was nothing, emotive but that was my first thought, and still is hmm


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 14, 2009)

NEWSNIGHT covering it as second item, in piece on protesting and power station arrests. On now (and on web tomorrow).
Greenpeace allege intimidation, harsssment, heavy handed police tactics towards green protesters.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 14, 2009)

Fuck' sake, Keith Vaz is on.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Fuck' sake, Keith Vaz is on.



I just caught the end of him being a smarmy little fucker. He didn't like being shown that video though. I noticed that they kept playing it, too, as a background.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

BBC News 24 just announced that the officer has been suspended.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 14, 2009)

Suspended; that was quick.
The indy media thread is full of journos asking for leads, heh.
We are all the media, innit.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 14, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> BBC News 24 just announced that the officer has been suspended.



Probably suspended due to not wearing his number even thou' the whole force was doing it...


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

BBC just announced he has been suspended.

(edit: my post: too late!)


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Suspended; that was quick.
> The indy media thread is full of journos asking for leads, heh.
> We are all the media, innit.



And the Daily Star too ffs.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 14, 2009)

On the number, the indymedia thread gives it as U 5402 - which is in line with a post on one of the other threads saying he'd been promoted (and so no longer on an AB number).  Though, to be honest, its irrelevant if he's been suspended (though we haven't got a name yet - or for the Ian Tomlinson hitter AFAIK).

With regard to Badco's flurry of invisible punches from the woman, this is clearly possible given her extra 3rd arm.  She has a big carton of fruit juice in one hand and a camera in the other.  Hopeless for launching the cruel blows you imagine she rained down on him - must have the been her other arm then.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Probably suspended due to not wearing his number even thou' the whole force was doing it...



And being a leading news item won't help. He'll get the sack, they'll have to. Then he'll shuffle off into some other industry that requires you to be a wanker like door security or wheel clamping.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 14, 2009)

Okay, all you techies and photographers - the next challenge is to get some good shots identifying the clubbers from the Climate Camp attack.  Be harder to get any suspensions out of those, as the media are less likely to run with stories that don't have a visible individual victim.  But worth a try.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 14, 2009)

....


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 14, 2009)

linky dink to beeb story


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> Okay, all you techies and photographers - the next challenge is to get some good shots identifying the clubbers from the Climate Camp attack.  Be harder to get any suspensions out of those, as the media are less likely to run with stories that don't have a visible individual victim.  But worth a try.



Like your thinking.

I hate to adapt tinternet-naff-term into a serious topic, but I think what we're seeing here is "Justice 2.0".

It's fucking cool.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

All this video and photographic evidence leaking through into the mainstream is going to make it really hard for the police to try and stretch anti-terrorism legislation to cover banning photography at future demos. Even the Daily Mail must now appreciate the importance of recording protests from all sides now.


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> All this video and photographic evidence leaking through into the mainstream is going to make it really hard for the police to try and stretch anti-terrorism legislation to cover banning photography at future demos. Even the Daily Mail must now appreciate the importance of recording protests from all sides now.



I'm quite hyper right now, seeing this unflold hour by hour, but I think you're right.

I think this is a genuine turning point.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 14, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I'm quite hyper right now, seeing this unflold hour by hour, but I think you're right.
> 
> I think this is a genuine turning point.



i agree. there does seem to be something relatively momentous going on here, I don't remember there ever being this much anti-plod media coverage before! 

*pinches self*


----------



## david dissadent (Apr 14, 2009)

I suspect that many police officers now fear the people. What they fear is their ability to gather evidence and affect their careers. 

I predict a large number of officers making themselves unavailable for further public order duties. Similar to the semi revolt in SO19.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 14, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Like your thinking.
> 
> I hate to adapt tinternet-naff-term into a serious topic, but I think what we're seeing here is "Justice 2.0".
> 
> It's fucking cool.



I think there's a lot of mileage in terms of getting a big 'dossier', wall of shame, call it what you want - like you say, using all kinds of electronic reports + eye witnes accounts, police statements from before the g20 etc.

All this could be focused into a mass of complaints to the IPCC (which, to be honest is already happening) though I don't share liberal assumptions that the IPCC is a 'legitimate' channel for justice.  As such, a mass of complaints wouldn't be put in with any kind of outcome in mind - the whole process is designed to dissipate energy and anger - but merely as a tactic.

To be honest though, the IPCC is irrelevant.  Main aim would be to simply show how real individuals have been routinely brutalised by the state (in a planned and coordinated way).  

- and as the Ed says to defend future photographers

Loads of different sites are going to be doing versions of the wall of shame, building evidence etc.  Be nice if there was some coordination though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2009)

david dissadent said:


> I predict a large number of officers making themselves unavailable for further public order duties.



I'm not sure they get a choice in it. All leave is cancelled. Those are your orders; follow them.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2009)

Even if the cops do try and implement terrorism laws to force photographers to hand over their cameras and videos, new mobile streaming technologies will soon make it a redundant gesture.

People will just take movies/photos and upload them directly onto YouTube from within the 'kettle,' so there's no way the cops can stop the info getting out (unless they delve even deeper into their dodgy powers and force a mobile signal blackout.

Quite a few phones are already capable of uploading videos directly and it'll soon become commonplace.


----------



## laptop (Apr 14, 2009)

Respect to the _Guardian_ headline sub:

Video shows Met police attack on mourner at Tomlinson vigil


----------



## scott_forester (Apr 14, 2009)

editor said:


> All this video and photographic evidence leaking through into the mainstream is going to make it really hard for the police to try and stretch anti-terrorism legislation to cover banning photography at future demos. Even the Daily Mail must now appreciate the importance of recording protests from all sides now.



Given the cheek of the Met wouldn't surprise me if they go the other way and try and ban any video etc - for 'safety' reasons.


----------



## david dissadent (Apr 14, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not sure they get a choice in it. All leave is cancelled. Those are your orders; follow them.


As I understand it public order policing is a volunteer position.


----------



## laptop (Apr 14, 2009)

scott_forester said:


> Given the cheek of the Met wouldn't surprise me if they go the other way and try and ban any video etc - for 'safety' reasons.



I'd sort of like to see them try.

Remember the ban on Gerry Adams?

Let's see Newsnight sorting re-enactments of demonstrations, with a "Performed by actors" caption 


.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7999277.stm*

Met suspends G20 footage officer 

A Metropolitan Police officer shown in YouTube video footage apparently hitting a woman during the G20 summit protests in London has been suspended.*


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7999277.stm*
> 
> Met suspends G20 footage officer
> 
> A Metropolitan Police officer shown in YouTube video footage apparently hitting a woman during the G20 summit protests in London has been suspended.*




Oh yes.

What _could_ happen now is a sort of bin-race between the news organisations - how many can _we_ get suspended? That's sort of what happened with the Tory scandals at the thin grey Satsuma-flavoured end of the Major regime...


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7999277.stm*
> 
> Met suspends G20 footage officer
> 
> A Metropolitan Police officer shown in YouTube video footage apparently hitting a woman during the G20 summit protests in London has been suspended.*



*ahem*


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

scott_forester said:


> Given the cheek of the Met wouldn't surprise me if they go the other way and try and ban any video etc - for 'safety' reasons.


They'd have to ban mobile phones too and that would cause a real outrage.





> Even if the police do try and implement terrorism laws to force photographers to  hand over their cameras and video footage, new mobile streaming technologies  will soon make it a redundant gesture.
> 
> Using fast 3G connections,  protesters will be able to take movies/photos on their mobile phones and upload  them directly onto YouTube from within the 'kettle,' so there's no way the cops  can stop the footage getting out (unless they delve even deeper into their dodgy  powers and force a mobile signal blackout - a move which would surely prompt  questions from the general public).
> 
> ...


----------



## XR75 (Apr 15, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> A good comment from a BBC reporter on the 'incident', ''police can use violence but will have to justfiy it''. Having watching the video a number of times, for me the Police officer has done nothing wrong. She marched on him, verbally abusing him, and I can see her push/hit him in the back, and he turns around to defend himself and she got a back hander, he was trying to keep her away from himself, and she was a bit unlucky to get a slap on her face, he could have easily caught on the arm or somewhere else.



This sums up my thoughts.It wasn't much of a backhander either.
I wouldn't say the use of the baton was justified unless there were other circumstances like the crowd starting a rush.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> *ahem*


I think he described it a little better than you mind, seeing as your post just said, "linky dink to beeb story".


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> I think he described it a little better than you mind, seeing as your post just said, "linky dink to beeb story".



ah ok, fairy nuff then


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> This sums up my thoughts.It wasn't much of a backhander either.
> I wouldn't say the use of the baton was justified unless there were other circumstances like the crowd starting a rush.




You're a fucking idiot too.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> This sums up my thoughts.It wasn't much of a backhander either.


It shouldn't be _anything _of a backhander when dealing with smaller, non threatening, non violent protesters.


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> This sums up my thoughts.It wasn't much of a backhander either.




Just for the sake of argument, would you like to arrange a date and place for me to give you a backhander like that? 

I get to choose whether the forearm armour with which I hit you - I mean he hit her - is thin or thick fibreglass, btw.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

laptop said:


> Oh yes.
> 
> What _could_ happen now is a sort of bin-race between the news organisations - how many can _we_ get suspended? That's sort of what happened with the Tory scandals at the thin grey Satsuma-flavoured end of the Major regime...



and the irony is, it could be the very same journos who were banging on about violent protesters only a week ago.  If there was the chance of an exclusive and getting their name under an article they'd do it without a moments hesitation


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

Do you think the officer in question was using the Tobyjug manual in dealing with hysterical women? 




_pH_ said:


> *ahem*



I just saw that


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> I just saw that



did you see me getting pwn'd by ed too?


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> All this video and photographic evidence leaking through into the mainstream is going to make it really hard for the police to try and stretch anti-terrorism legislation to cover banning photography at future demos. Even the Daily Mail must now appreciate the importance of recording protests from all sides now.



I would like to thinks so but I can't see that happening. In fact I would go as far to say that is almost naively optimistic. Two or three well reported incidents of police officers behaving in abhorrent ways is not going to change the view of many people.

I have had to bite my tongue more than once at some of the comments I have heard at work today and they're nothing compared to what a lot of people say in forums, blogs and on text / phone-ins. Many people think the police should have used tear gas and water cannons. It conjures up images of the riots of SA during the PT  to me.

Nothing is going to come of this. Just another ugly footnote in the history of the police force in Britain.

Spiked online's reaction to it all, which is supposed to be an unbiased source, is well... "Don't be alarmed, it isn't that bad really."


----------



## maomao (Apr 15, 2009)

So are there any videos of our brave boys in blue beating up strong young men or do they just attack old men and girls?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Do you think the officer in question was using the Tobyjug manual in dealing with hysterical women?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gawd, I'd forgotten that!  That could be the OB's ultimate line of defence - "M'lud, on April 1st, the whole of central London got a bit Boat Happy".


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 15, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> Gawd, I'd forgotten that!  That could be the OB's ultimate line of defence - "M'lud, on April 1st, the whole of central London got a bit Boat Happy".



rofl 

I can see now, we were lucky not to get shot on April 1st!


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Spiked online's reaction to it all, which is supposed to be an unbiased source, is well... "Don't be alarmed, it isn't that bad really."



yeah, but they're the remnants of the RCP and are barking mad


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I hate to adapt tinternet-naff-term into a serious topic, but I think what we're seeing here is "Justice 2.0".
> 
> It's fucking cool.




The correct term is "sousveillance".

Nicked this week by Marina Hyde from Michael White's blog last week and _New Scientist's_ props to Indymedia in 2006 (and this utter misunderstanding in the Grauniad in 2005).


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 15, 2009)

zygote said:


> AB 42 is a sergeant with City Of Westminster Police based at Begravia


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

I can imagine the conversation:

"Look, AB42. It pains me to do this but you were caught on camera and after this Ian Tomlinson lark we [the IPCC], have to make it look like we give a flying fuck. So we're going to have to suspend you on full pay. Have yourself a nice little holiday at that silly bitch's expense. If the worst comes to the worst, we'll give you an excellent redundancy package and a career in counter-terrorism, and crowd control consultancy."


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 15, 2009)

Was I the only one hoping for a brick to come over there and hit him? Or is that just "non-fluffy" of me?


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> yeah, but they're the remnants of the RCP and are barking mad



Yeah, but how many people share that opinion outside of Urban75?


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> I would like to thinks so but I can't see that happening. In fact I would go as far to say that is almost naively optimistic. Two or three well reported incidents of police officers behaving in abhorrent ways is not going to change the view of many people.


The police would already be stretching anti-terrorism laws to the _absolute limit _to make them apply to photographers at protests, and after recent developments I don't think it's 'naive' to suggest that they may now find it even harder.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has already been put on the back foot about this, after being quizzed in Parliament a few weeks ago:



> "I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute.
> 
> There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.
> 
> ...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 15, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> enough bad apples to make shitloads of MetPol brand cider now




Surely, someone who has Photoshop can do something with this?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> The police would already be stretching anti-terrorism laws to the _absolute limit _to make them apply to photographers at protests, and after recent developments I don't think it's 'naive' to suggest that they may now find it even harder.
> 
> Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has already been put on the back foot about this, after being quizzed in Parliament a few weeks ago:



Thing is though, FITwatch were able to provide the badge number of that Robocop dude beating the snot out of the tiny woman in the video above. 

You want to bet that this law isn't intended to apply to FITwatch?


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Yeah, but how many people share that opinion outside of Urban75?



The opinion that Spiked, IoI, Sense about Science and all the other post-RCP fronts are barking?

Is shared by everyone I know outside urban75 who's seriously considered the question "who the fuck are these people?" - some of them Very Serious People. The only thing anyone disagrees about is why they do it.


----------



## paolo (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> I can imagine the conversation:
> 
> "Look, AB42. It pains me to do this but you were caught on camera and after this Ian Tomlinson lark we [the IPCC], have to make it look like we give a flying fuck. So we're going to have to suspend you on full pay. Have yourself a nice little holiday at that silly bitch's expense. If the worst comes to the worst, we'll give you an excellent redundancy package and a career in counter-terrorism, and crowd control consultancy."



I think you might be over estimating loyalty.

Here's another possibility:

You're getting thrown the lions, after which we'll say "a few bad apples", and hope to fuck our own decisions on the day (and careers) don't get a going-over.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

I think that the tactic of 'kettling' and the associated use of baton charges and dogs to compress the kettle and of violence like we see applied to the black guy trying to leave the kettle in the video above, are methods of intimidating people into not exercising their perfectly legal right to take part in peaceful protest. (I'd just like to mention in advance here, some other people not being peaceful up the road or on a different day, does not I would suggest, automatically invalidate the right of peaceful protest for others. So for example, some yobs smashing the windows of a bank in no way justifies the violence used against the entirely peaceful climate change hippies up the road.)

We've seen it said here 'If you don't want to be kettled, then don't take part in protests' and variations on that are a frequent response from police during these operations. It appears to me that the practical interpretation of the Human Rights Act in this country, particularly in terms of the application of police powers to control assemblies and other protest activities, are absolutely in violation of the spirit of the act.

The police rationale for their tactics may be expressed in public order terms, but in practice, the tactics are obviously calculated to punish those who take part by making them stand around in puddles of wee getting hungrier and thirstier for hours on end while occasionally being pushed around, menaced by dogs and whacked with clubs if they fail to show sufficient submissiveness for the tastes of the officers imprisoning them.

Why do I think it's obviously calculated to have some other effect than preserving public order? Here's an MP who was caught in a kettle explaining ...



> “Kettling” is a tactic that should come under review. At the first sign of difficulty, the police present a wall of riot shields and batons around protesters — the peaceful alongside the problematic — and slowly squeeze them into a tighter space. People are allowed in, but absolutely no one is allowed to leave.
> 
> Slowly the number of inmates increases. No access to food. No water. Young trapped with the old. Journalists trapped with anarchists. People, like an elderly couple I spoke to, who simply did not want to be there at all.
> 
> It is not surprising that under such conditions an otherwise overwhelmingly relaxed and peaceful crowd can become agitated, then angry, and then violent



source

You can see it happen in the longer version of that video. The first three minutes show an apparently peaceful crowd of mourners holding a vigil for the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson. It becomes apparent after a minute or so that they've been kettled in, and you can see a couple of people being refused permission to leave the cordon (and one poor sod who looks awfully like a 'tog looking for interesting shots innocently wandering into the cordon) Then the black guy apparently argues the toss a bit too much for the officers' liking and they start manhandling him. At that point everybody's adrenaline levels apparently start going up, the small woman starts remonstrating with Robocop and then he kicks off and violently assaults her ...

If the intention was to maximise the chances of the demo being peaceful, then using tactics calculated to jam peaceful protesters (the vast majority) in with any non-peaceful ones (although hardcore political hooligans like the Black Bloc will have seen the kettle coming a mile off and are unlikely to be caught in it) and to seriously annoy all of them over a period of many hours would obviously not be the optimal way to go about it.

Hence it's entirely reasonable to conclude that maximising the chance of a peaceful demo is not the intention.

What kettling does very well though is to make sure that the demonstrators have as miserable a day as possible consistent with paying lip service to human rights law, including setting up a situation where the likelihood of violence is actually increased, but where it's contained and very arguably dangerous mainly to the protesters jammed together in the kettle, so one reasonably deduces that to be the intent ...


----------



## scooter (Apr 15, 2009)

I just watched it. If it was just the baton hit to the legs he might have been in the clear but the entirely unnecessary backhander to the face, on a woman and shown on national TV - he's fucked.

Even when they have to control a large drunken thug on a Friday night they're not supposed to do that - actively hit someone. They're just supposed to grab his arms and subdue him.

He'll be lucky to escape prison.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> The police would already be stretching anti-terrorism laws to the _absolute limit _to make them apply to photographers at protests, and after recent developments I don't think it's 'naive' to suggest that they may now find it even harder.



Well I hope you are right and I am wrong! Even so it's pretty pointless what with camera phones and what not. The tech that police use on 'us' has been used on 'them'. 

I still think that it will be swept under the carpet and a few token trials will result. The police officers in question will take the blunt of the blame not policing methods.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Thing is though, FITwatch were able to provide the badge number of that Robocop dude beating the snot out of the tiny woman in the video above.
> 
> You want to bet that this law isn't intended to apply to FITwatch?



What is FITwatch?


----------



## XR75 (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> It shouldn't be _anything _of a backhander when dealing with smaller, non threatening, non violent protesters.



When should forced be used to deal with irate people like her,or should they be allowed to cling onto the police like monkeys without being swatted off?



laptop said:


> Just for the sake of argument, would you like to arrange a date and place for me to give you a backhander like that?



Yeah why not but only on the condition I get to intruduce you to a proper backhand slap with the same armour.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 15, 2009)

smokedout said:


> there were only around 200 people on that demo and it was completely peaceful
> 
> if shed been nicked on the spot then she would have been subject to due process, which is how the law works in this country, as opposed to summary corporal punishment based on the decision of random plod
> 
> ...


I agree and disagree with this.

I'd argue they were - potentially - under threat.

They weren't initially.

But after their heavy handed approach, pushing and shoving the original guy, and then what seems like a prima facie case of assault against the woman, the situation seemed to escalate, and the police were, arguably, by that point under threat, or at least it seemed very 'edgy' with the potential to kick off.  Must admit, not seeing any wider shots, if I'd been a police officer towards the end, amid a group of protesters shouting 'Shame, shame, shame' I think I might have been cacking it slightly, thinking 'Oh oh' 

But my point is that the police weren't responding to an 'edgy' situation, they actually created it.  It wasn't threatening to start off with, it was only as a result of their own actions that the situation seems to take a turn for the worse.

They're supposed to be maintaining public order, but what they're actually doing is being catalysts to create situations of breach of the peace and assault.


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> Yeah why not but only on the condition I get to intruduce you to a proper backhand slap with the same armour.



Oh no. What I am offering is a _proper_ re-enactment society. 

You have to indemnify me against charges of assaulting a police officer, too - just in case I'm right that that's what you are.

Still game? Still reckon it "wasn't much"?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> <snip>
> 
> But my point is that the police weren't responding to an 'edgy' situation, they actually created it.  It wasn't threatening to start off with, it was only as a result of their own actions that the situation seems to take a turn for the worse.
> 
> They're supposed to be maintaining public order, but what they're actually doing is being catalysts to create situations of breach of the peace and assault.



Which is precisely the point about their 'kettling' tactics.


----------



## XR75 (Apr 15, 2009)

> What kettling does very well though is to make sure that the demonstrators have as miserable a day as possible consistent with paying lip service to human rights law,



I would imagine something about that and other tactics like charging horses around would have some angle where legal action could be taken.


----------



## paolo (Apr 15, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I agree and disagree with this.
> 
> I'd argue they were - potentially - under threat.
> 
> ...



There's certainly a big difference between this and the Ian Tomlinson assault, and there seems to be alot of _possible_ outside the frame stuff.

Although what we've seen is - on the face of it - horrendous, I think what the other witnesses (police & public) have to say could have a big influence on the case.

Hopefully the public witnesses will now be aware and either contact the IPCC, or (perhaps better, given recent IPCC events) contact the media in the first instance, as well as the IPCC.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> When should forced be used to deal with irate people like her,or should they be allowed to cling onto the police like monkeys without being swatted off?
> 
> .



With your level of dishonesty and misrepresentation, you should form a working partnership with Damian McBride.  Just fuck off.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 15, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Which is precisely the point about their 'kettling' tactics.


Yeah, I know, I was responding to the point being made about the situation not being threatening to the police, saying that it wasn't, but then potentially became so as a direct result of their own actions.

I was just hammering home the point about how the atmosphere of the situation seemed to change not as a result of the protesters actions (some bloke who was apparently simply persistently asking to leave the kettle, and some woman who was objecting to the bloke being manhandled), but the situation became more tense as a direct result of the police manhandling the bloke and then the prima facie case of assault against the woman.

We're on the same page.

The situation reminds me a bit of bouncers, tbh.  Over the years, I've developed an aversion to the kind of pubs that have bouncers on their doors, because I think they don't so much defuse aggro, they simply create it.  If you get some idiot and give them a sense of authority, many of them will abuse those powers and you end up with a situation that's much worse than the situation you were trying to avoid by bringing in the goons.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Yeah, I know, I was responding to the point being made about the situation not being threatening to the police, saying that it wasn't, but then potentially became so as a direct result of their own actions.
> 
> I was just hammering home the point about how the atmosphere of the situation seemed to change not as a result of the protesters actions (some bloke who was apparently simply persistently asking to leave the kettle, and some woman who was objecting to the bloke being manhandled), but the situation became more tense as a direct result of the police manhandling the bloke and then the prima facie case of assault against the woman.
> 
> ...



Yep, that's what I'm on about here: 



> You can see it happen in the longer version of that video. The first three minutes show an apparently peaceful crowd of mourners holding a vigil for the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson. It becomes apparent after a minute or so that they've been kettled in, and you can see a couple of people being refused permission to leave the cordon (and one poor sod who looks awfully like a photographer looking for interesting shots innocently wandering into the cordon) Then the black guy apparently argues the toss a bit too much for the officers' liking and they start manhandling him. At that point everybody's adrenaline levels apparently start going up, the small woman starts remonstrating with Robocop and then he kicks off and violently assaults her ...
> 
> If the intention was to maximise the chances of the demo being peaceful, then using tactics calculated to jam peaceful protesters (the vast majority) in with any non-peaceful ones (although hardcore political hooligans like the Black Bloc will have seen the kettle coming a mile off and are unlikely to be caught in it) and to seriously annoy all of them over a period of many hours would obviously not be the optimal way to go about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 15, 2009)

Surely, now it's time for the covering up of identifying numbers to be a specific disciplinary offence, and for it amount to gross misconduct.  

What possible justifiable reason can there be for covering up numbers, if not for the purposes of trying to avoid being held accountable for misbehaviour?


----------



## nick h. (Apr 15, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> and the irony is, it could be the very same journos who were banging on about violent protesters only a week ago.  If there was the chance of an exclusive and getting their name under an article they'd do it without a moments hesitation



So true.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 15, 2009)

I love some of the captions on FITwatch:

http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 15, 2009)

Is dragging people down the street part of police policy btw?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zongo/3406977903/


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 15, 2009)

Originally Posted by 4thwrite said:
			
		

> and the irony is, it could be the very same journos who were banging on about violent protesters only a week ago. If there was the chance of an exclusive and getting their name under an article they'd do it without a moments hesitation





nick h. said:


> So true.




Maybe I'm missing the point about what's supposed to be so 'bad' or objectionable about this.

If protesters are being violent (like smashing up the windows of a bank), then of course the journalists are going to report it.

If protesters are being non-violent and fluffy and holding tea parties in a climate camp, but the police are being violent, then of course the journalists are going to report it, I don't quite see what's amiss about journalists doing what, erm, journalists do, i.e. report on events.


----------



## XR75 (Apr 15, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> With your level of dishonesty and misrepresentation, you should form a working partnership with Damian McBride.  Just fuck off.



You guys are so funny. 



AnnO'Neemus said:


> If protesters are being non-violent and fluffy and holding tea parties in a climate camp, but the police are being violent, then of course the journalists are going to report it, I don't quite see what's amiss about journalists doing what, erm, journalists do, i.e. report on events.



Their reports accuracy and objectivity is lacking at times.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Maybe I'm missing the point about what's supposed to be so 'bad' or objectionable about this.
> 
> If protesters are being violent (like smashing up the windows of a bank), then of course the journalists are going to report it.
> 
> If protesters are being non-violent and fluffy and holding tea parties in a climate camp, but the police are being violent, then of course the journalists are going to report it, I don't quite see what's amiss about journalists doing what, erm, journalists do, i.e. report on events.




My point was that most papers/journos had a 'line' - before, during and even in some cases beyone the g20.  They were playing a role, disseminating the briefings they had been given by police.  This isn't about journalists simply _reacting to the things they see _- some kind of neutral reportage.

However, without getting near to producing an anti-police line in the aftermath, those same journalists will be happy (and self interested) enough to pick out a few brutality cases - the ones with 'small women' or 'innocent victims' in them - to run a story.  At the same time, their colleagues will be happy to to run stories about Ian Tomlinson as a 'homeless alcoholic'. A mixture of journalists doing what Chomsky said they do whilst also contrary examples if that sells a bit of temporary copy.

Having said all that, I'm sure some of the ones who are running with brutality stories are genuine, and the Guradian has has done some good work.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 15, 2009)

Goodness. How free-thinking.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 15, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Maybe I'm missing the point about what's supposed to be so 'bad' or objectionable about this.
> 
> If protesters are being violent (like smashing up the windows of a bank), then of course the journalists are going to report it.
> 
> If protesters are being non-violent and fluffy and holding tea parties in a climate camp, but the police are being violent, then of course the journalists are going to report it, I don't quite see what's amiss about journalists doing what, erm, journalists do, i.e. report on events.



The reporting on it is all well and good. The bit where they do an opinion piece and contradict themselves with an opposing opinion the next week makes me laugh. It must be wrong because Private Eye lambast them for it. (I'm a journalist but of course I'm one of the few who is always right.  )


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

All this makes me laugh at the someone who wanted to rehumanise [.sic] and engage with the police in a nice cosy way at a demo. "LOL". 

Head in clouds. Head in clouds. You hippy feck!


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Goodness. How free-thinking.



Moi?


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> When should forced be used to deal with irate people like her,or should they be allowed to cling onto the police like monkeys without being swatted off?


Dealing with irate people is what the police are trained - and paid - for. 

She was presenting no physical threat. She had not touched the officer. She was certainly not "clinging on like a monkey" (where the fuck are you getting this weird shit from?).

Force was not needed. If she had broken any laws, she could have been arrested by any one of the many cops around without recourse to violence and smacks in the mush.


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> She was certainly not "clinging on like a monkey" (where the fuck are you getting this weird shit from?)



I have an intuition that XR 75 is quite scared right now... wonder what they were doing on 1 & 2 April?


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 isn't a copper, I have met him.

Bet he doesn't remember it though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 15, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> Moi?



No, you know, I post a response and half a dozen buggers post things in between the one I was replying to and mine. And then it takes ages for me to realise that my own response is entirely misplaced now. Bah. I should just quote more.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, you know, I post a response and half a dozen buggers post things in between the one I was replying to and mine. And then it takes ages for me to realise that my own response is entirely misplaced now. Bah. I should just quote more.



Perhaps you should shout *COMING THROUGH!* when you about to post


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> XR75 isn't a copper, I have met him.
> 
> Bet he doesn't remember it though.



If he isn't a copper, i bet he likes dressing up as one - esp. the monkey swatting gauntlets.

Hmmm... Herbert, I wouldn't have you down as an attender at Copperware parties


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> If he isn't a copper, i bet he likes dressing up as one - esp. the monkey swatting gauntlets.
> 
> Hmmm... Herbert, I wouldn't have you down as an attender at Copperware parties



Taken against my will


----------



## XR75 (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Dealing with irate people is what the police are trained - and paid - for.
> 
> She was presenting no physical threat. She had not touched the officer. She was certainly not "clinging on like a monkey" (where the fuck are you getting this weird shit from?).



I was making an example not saying that's what they were doing.
For example instead of getting close and pokey she decides to cling to his leg, what happens if other people do the same thing when he tries to arrest her amusing as that would be.




Herbert Read said:


> XR75 isn't a copper, I have met him.
> 
> Bet he doesn't remember it though.



Of course if I had never met you you could just claim I wasn't remembering with that statement.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 15, 2009)

Shoulder length curly hair.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> For example instead of getting close and pokey she decides to cling to his leg, what happens if other people do the same thing when he tries to arrest her amusing as that would be.



Look, I know Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was on over Easter and you've probably been having bad dreams.  However, there's really no need to build up a whole policing strategy against the fear of small people impeding copper's legs.  

Sweet jaysus.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> I was making an example not saying that's what they were doing.
> For example instead of getting close and pokey she decides to cling to his leg, what happens if other people do the same thing when he tries to arrest her amusing as that would be.



Just, you know, "what?"


----------



## rorymac (Apr 15, 2009)

albionism said:


>



I fucking hate everyone who looks like that and hollers all wrong like that violent wanker. The effeminate one with the cheekbones is a major wrongun also imo.


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 15, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Then he'll shuffle off into some other industry that requires you to be a wanker like door security or wheel clamping.



LOL So true.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 15, 2009)

Tis all good that the press are finally waking up to what the police are really like.

It's sad that they couldn't have unearthed it themselves and that it is left to the public to film the worst excesses before they act.

Now when's the climate camp violence gonna be aired?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> Yeah why not but only on the condition I get to intruduce you to a proper backhand slap with the same armour.



Alright then, I'll go and fetch the step ladders for you.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 15, 2009)

It's important that, like Detective Boy, that we should not jump to any conclusions whatsoever until hearing all the available evidence from the officer and those concerned. 

I mean, there are probably several perfectly plausible explanations as to why why his numbers are covered. He may have, for example, been trying to wrap a present for his good lady wife in his sexy riot outfit at the last second, but ran out of sellotape. He may have had to use parcel tape, and was  storing the extra strips on his shoulders to facilitate easier wrapping. Or perhaps, simply, a protestor armed with a packaging gun set upon his epaulets unexpectedly. It's important that we hear all the _truth_


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 15, 2009)

BBC Breakfast running with this, just had Shami on, lib Dems say shows 
'systematic' problems, calling for full scale inquiry, human rights lawyer on next.

still not maaking it clear that this was on Sunday, at a vigil, not sat at the main event


----------



## xes (Apr 15, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> BBC Breakfast running with this, just had Shami on, lib Dems say shows
> 'systematic' problems, calling for full scale inquiry, human rights lawyer on next.
> 
> still not maaking it clear that this was on Sunday, at a vigil, not sat at the main event



It was on thursday i think  

Good to see the bastard's been suspended. I hope his life takes a downwards spiral, and he ends up alone and bitter


----------



## albionism (Apr 15, 2009)

I hope he is already alone and bitter. Imagine being married to that! Or being one of his children.
I can picture him giving his wife or child a back-hander for contradicting him at the dinner table.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> When should forced be used to deal with irate people like her,or should they be allowed to cling onto the police like monkeys without being swatted off?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah why not but only on the condition I get to intruduce you to a proper backhand slap with the same armour.



wanker


----------



## xes (Apr 15, 2009)

albionism said:


> I hope he is already alone and bitter. Imagine being married to that! Or being one of his children.
> I can picture him giving his wife or child a back-hander for contradicting him at the dinner table.



they ask him to pass the salt, and he straps it to the back of his hand and "gives it to them"


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> I was making an example not saying that's what they were doing.
> For example instead of getting close and pokey she decides to cling to his leg, what happens if other people do the same thing when he tries to arrest her amusing as that would be.



Were you pissed when you wrote that?


----------



## boskysquelch (Apr 15, 2009)

http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/former-fit-officer-suspended-over-g20.html


----------



## In Bloom (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> I was making an example not saying that's what they were doing.
> For example instead of getting close and pokey she decides to cling to his leg, what happens if other people do the same thing when he tries to arrest her amusing as that would be.


So in other words, you were talking bollocks.  It's plain to see on the video, no physical contact on her part whatsoever, she challenges his authority by arguing with him, he responds with violence.

I notice that he disappeared pretty fast after knocking her to the ground, not just a thug, but a coward.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tis all good that the press are finally waking up to what the police are really like.


Are they, though?  The accepted story seems to be blame one or two "out of control" foot soldiers who reacted badly "under pressure".  The problem is from the top, and it's policing strategy, not individual "bad apples".


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 15, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> I notice that he disappeared pretty fast after knocking her to the ground, not just a thug, but a coward.



sorry to correct you inbloom, tho i dont think she was knocked to the ground? Did the she not stay on her feet holding the orange juice and camera in her hands.  

better keeping  it all factual an that, or you may have one of the two muppets on here jumping up and down like a monkey on speed.


----------



## xes (Apr 15, 2009)

it looks to me like she's floored. But I just get that from her immediate reaction, the rest of her is off camera. But a blow to the knee joint, is designed to knock you down. And you can see that's where he's aiming for.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 15, 2009)

xes said:


> it looks to me like she's floored. But I just get that from her immediate reaction, the rest of her is off camera. But a blow to the knee joint, is designed to knock you down. And you can see that's where he's aiming for.



im sure i read on indy originally that the she stayed on her feet despite the swipe to her.. i would look for the link but im off to wooooooooooorrrrkkk


----------



## In Bloom (Apr 15, 2009)

Garcia Lorca said:


> sorry to correct you inbloom, tho i dont think she was knocked to the ground? Did the she not stay on her feet holding the orange juice and camera in her hands.


It looked to me like she fell after he smacked her in the legs with a big bloody stick, sorry, exercised reasonable force using a less lethal weapon.  I might be mistaken though.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Are they, though?  The accepted story seems to be blame one or two "out of control" foot soldiers who reacted badly "under pressure".  The problem is from the top, and it's policing strategy, not individual "bad apples".


That's the line the right-wing media are taking because they can't really ignore or justify what's happened. There is plenty of discussion of the systemic issues, and not just in the media.



> The Times has learnt that senior Scotland Yard officers who led Operation Glencoe, the plan to protect the summit and prevent disorder, have been summoned to explain their tactics to members of the force’s watchdog body.
> 
> Commander Bob Broadhurst and his team will also be questioned at a closed meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) about the death of Ian Tomlinson, who was hit by a riot police officer minutes before he died from a heart attack. Mr Broadhurst, who gave stark warnings of violence before the protests, will also face questions about whether the language he and fellow commanders used served to stoke up confrontation.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I know nothing much will come of it. But a lot of people have just woken up to the fact that it isn't just a few bad apples.


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

* cough * 10 April



> The meeting will take place on April 23 amid mounting public concern and complaints about an aggressive police approach to the demonstrations.
> 
> The officers will also have to appear at a *public session* of the authority the following week.



Do we have a date and time yet? (Yes, I know - supposed to be working!)


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2009)

ymu said:


> But a lot of people have just woken up to the fact that it isn't just a few bad apples.


Yes, indeed.  Which is what worries more perceptive people within policing.  However, while there is indeed discussion, as you rightly say it'll come to little, and will be lost under the headlines about the sacrificial goats.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

Garcia Lorca said:


> sorry to correct you inbloom, tho i dont think she was knocked to the ground? Did the she not stay on her feet holding the orange juice and camera in her hands.
> 
> better keeping  it all factual an that, or you may have one of the two muppets on here jumping up and down like a monkey on speed.



She stood her ground after the back-hander. She clearly falls to the ground after the baton attack - you see her fall backwards. 47-48 secs in on  vid.


----------



## Corax (Apr 15, 2009)

So when's the Bishopsgate brutality going to hit the headlines.  That has to be the next one surely.  IMO, it shows worse brutality than either of the 2 big news videos, and the public and media are now primed for it as further evidence of systemic violence, rather than being able to dismiss it off-hand as would have been the case before.


----------



## Corax (Apr 15, 2009)

Thinking on that further - it's only when you watch the Bishopsgate video a few times and isolate the incident spots that you realise quite how needlessly violent the filth were being.

Has anyone got the skills to make it more "media-friendly"?  Enhance the picture, slow down and zoom in on the incident spots* and so on?

Shouldn't have to spoon-feed the meeja, but may be necessary with this one.


*whilst keeping the full frame stuff as well, to prevent allegations of manipulation.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 15, 2009)

ymu said:


> That's the line the right-wing media are taking because they can't really ignore or justify what's happened. There is plenty of discussion of the systemic issues, and not just in the media.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know nothing much will come of it. But a lot of people have just woken up to the fact that it isn't just a few bad apples.



Well what's most telling in both the Tomlinson and the case of this lady is, other than the actual acts of violence, the absolute indifference of the other officers that witness the acts. To me this clearly demonstrates that it's an accepted form of policing by the police.


----------



## Corax (Apr 15, 2009)

The Ukpoliceonline forum appears to have closed their forums to guests now btw.  Cowardly scum.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 15, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Well what's most telling in both the Tomlinson and the case of this lady is, other than the actual acts of violence, the absolute indifference of the other officers that witness the acts. To me this clearly demonstrates that it's an accepted form of policing by the police.


Not only that but they're happy to do it surrounded by photographers and phone cameras - it suggests to me the police involved believe what they're doing isn't outside the rules.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

Basically,  police intelligence told them that the protest was going to be a mass of cider fuelled anarchists hell bent on the destruction of the city, but when a load of peaceful protesters turned up, the cops were unable to see the difference - so they met them with violence, intimidation and brutality.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Not only that but they're happy to do it surrounded by photographers and phone cameras - it suggests to me the police involved believe what they're doing isn't outside the rules.


I think it's more force of habit brought on by decades of getting away with it. There was an incredible amount of cameras on the demo and that's something the Old Bill had better get used to.


----------



## xes (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> I think it's more force of habit brought on by decades of getting away with it. There was an incredible amount of cameras on the demo and that's something the Old Bill had better get used to.



Damn straight they'd better. It's the best weapon we can possibly have, evidence on film of the brutality, and wankishness from those who are supposed to keep the peace.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> cider fuelled anarchists


Inverted commas round irony, please!  I've never been cider-fuelled in my life.


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

laptop said:


> * cough * 10 April
> 
> 
> 
> ...



30 April 2009
MPA Full Authority
10:00 - 12:00


----------



## e19896 (Apr 15, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Not only that but they're happy to do it surrounded by photographers and phone cameras - it suggests to me the police involved believe what they're doing isn't outside the rules.



*The police passed a new law that says that any person taking photographs of a police officer may be considered illegal and can face fines or imprisonment up to 10 years.
*
As of Monday 16th of April, 2009, a Law under section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act is active, posing serious questions about the police’s actions and the citizens’ interaction with them. The law states that if anyone takes a picture of a policeman/woman/officer in duty it will be considered illegal if they prove connections to terrorism.

Considering the events unfolded around Ian Tomlinson’s death ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault) the past couple of weeks, this Law could have tremendous impacts on the way the Met Police handle protests ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html), the way they handle those taking photos of them (). With Ian Tomlinson’s case, the truth would have never emerged if it wasn’t for professional and amateur video and photographic evidence which surfaced in response to the police’s claim that “Ian Tomlinson’s death was due to a heart failure”. This Law only enforces the brutality with which the police (and in a larger scale, the government) deals with people disagreeing with what they do. These people are supposed to “serve and protect” us, not rule us.

However, in the past few years, under the blanket of “Terrorism”, governments around the world (especially in the US and the UK) have removed rights from their citizens to monitor so-called “terrorist activities”. This way, every two steps you see a “Area monitored by CCTV” in London, and the police can take videos or photos of you at any point, without you knowing or being able to say anything. But wait.. if we try to do the same we.. get arrested. Because we are considered the terrorists.

While we are not terrorists, they are afraid of us and the power of everyday people in large masses (as opposed to powerful people in small groups). They want others to think we are the terrorists so they can suppress us and the uneducated, bland public will think they have the right to do so. But we know who the real terrorist is, and we cannot let them deceive the world into thinking they have the right to pass this Law without any obstacles.


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

e19896 said:


> *The police passed a new law that says that any person taking photographs of a police officer may be considered illegal and can face fines or imprisonment up to 10 years.*


*
No they didn't, the police do not pass laws, and in LDMG's opinion (and the JCHR's and the Home Office), the law does not say that.




			As of Monday 16th of April, 2009, a Law under section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act is active
		
Click to expand...

February.*


----------



## two sheds (Apr 15, 2009)

Ironic isn't it that the best defence for citizens against the police is a piece of equipment that shows what _actually_ happened rather than what they _say_ happened.

Eta: which they've now banned


----------



## xes (Apr 15, 2009)

two sheds said:


> Ironic isn't it that the best defence for citizens against the police is a piece of equipment that shows what _actually_ happened rather than what they _say_ happened.
> 
> Eta: which they've now banned



yeah but they've got to connect you to a terrorist cell before they can do alot. And as Ed said earlier on this thread (I think) technology these days, means that you can upload videos and pictures straight onto the web, from your phone. So making you delete pictures would be futile.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

two sheds said:


> Ironic isn't it that the best defence for citizens against the police is a piece of equipment that shows what _actually_ happened rather than what they _say_ happened.



I would think it also has a much more worthwhile political impact than chucking stuff at them too. 

Indeed, you might argue that without extensive video support, featuring newsworthy police violence, non-violent protest is almost inevitably going to be presented as 'police deal with violent troublemakers' by one means or another and hence largely invalidated in terms of its intended communication goals.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 15, 2009)

while the assault on the woman has rightly been hyped .. 

what about the attack ( which is what it was ) on the young black man trying to leave the kettle .. he does not appear to be a protester and politelty asks to be allowed to leave several times before he is hit/grasped by the throat and pushed back .. he was in no way threatening and appeared quite passive before this assault 

also notice in the video how a number of people walk into the kettle without the police stopping them .. yet when people attempt to leave they are stopped .. how thick is that


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

winjer said:


> No they didn't, the police do not pass laws, and in LDMG's opinion (and the JCHR's and the Home Office), the law does not say that.



Once more: the point about the police and photographers is this:


Cops don't want pictures taken - topic of this thread is why
So they arrest/otherwise detain photographer
Photographer at least misses deadline, because detained - or has pix impounded/deleted/lost
Weeks later, charge is dropped *or*
Months later, photographer is aquitted, *or*
Years later, photographer gets to go to Strasbourg

It doesn't matter, from the point of view of getting the news out, what the grounds for conviction for an offence are.

What *does* matter, from the point of view of getting the news out, is what stupid powers of arrest exist to be abused.




I am wondering whether the government has a conscious and cynical strategy of passing laws which it knows will be overturned in Strasbourg, but which can be used for all the time it takes to get there. We'll get an indication after next month, when a videographer who was detained under the Terrorism Act 2000 on 9 September *2003* gets a hearing. If she wins, expect yet another power of arrest pronto.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Apr 15, 2009)

laptop said:


> I am wondering whether the government has a conscious and cynical strategy of passing laws which it knows will be overturned in Strasbourg, but which can be used for all the time it takes to get there.



And when they're overturned, the government gets to blame Europe for being soft on whatever it's soft on.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

e19896 said:


> While we are not terrorists, they are afraid of us and the power of everyday people in large masses (as opposed to powerful people in small groups). They want others to think we are the terrorists so they can suppress us and the uneducated, bland public will think they have the right to do so. But we know who the real terrorist is, and we cannot let them deceive the world into thinking they have the right to pass this Law without any obstacles.


Please STOP posting up reams of copy and paste without including the source. 

I see you've copied it from here: http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1174

This topic has already been discussed at length here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247084


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> what about the attack ( which is what it was ) on the young black man trying to leave the kettle .. he does not appear to be a protester and politelty asks to be allowed to leave several times before he is hit/grasped by the throat and pushed back .. he was in no way threatening and appeared quite passive before this assault


That's the kind of thing that happens at football all the time. Looking at that video, you can see how entirely peaceful and quiet it all is until the cops decide to ramp up the tension.

The black guy appears to be polite throughout and he is met by aggression and rudeness. The 'wind them up until they respond and then go in mob handed' tactic is depressingly common.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> while the assault on the woman has rightly been hyped ..
> 
> what about the attack ( which is what it was ) on the young black man trying to leave the kettle .. he does not appear to be a protester and politelty asks to be allowed to leave several times before he is hit/grasped by the throat and pushed back .. he was in no way threatening and appeared quite passive before this assault
> 
> also notice in the video how a number of people walk into the kettle without the police stopping them .. yet when people attempt to leave they are stopped .. how thick is that



I think that's a good demonstration of how the kettling tactic is not something you'd do if you wanted to maximise the chances of a peaceful demonstration, but rather what you'd do if you wanted to make protest as unpleasant as possible while staying within the letter of the law (mostly) and if possible provoking violence in a controlled manner to increase the unpleasantness and justify police heavy-handedness. 

It's pretty clear from the longer version of the video, where you see a couple of innocents wandering into the kettle and a couple of people being stopped from leaving, that up until the point where the cops attack that black guy, the situation was peaceful, if not happy or contented. The longer it goes on though, the more pissed off the crowd is going to become and indeed we see the tension rise rapidly when for whatever reason, multiple cops start manhandling the black guy. It demonstrates how kettling a peaceful crowd and indiscriminately using aggression against that crowd creates a situation where violence becomes more likely than if the tactic were not used at all.


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> And when they're overturned, the government gets to blame Europe for being soft on whatever it's soft on.



Conversely, they get to blame "Europe" for stuff like the requirement to keep records of my visit to this site now.

Bollocks. The UK government _wrote_ that Directive, copying from the RIP Act.

[/derail]


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> what about the attack ( which is what it was ) on the young black man trying to leave the kettle .. he does not appear to be a protester and politelty asks to be allowed to leave several times before he is hit/grasped by the throat and pushed back .. he was in no way threatening and appeared quite passive before this assault


Not seen that one.  Do the BBC/Guardian/Times have it?


----------



## likesfish (Apr 15, 2009)

copper has'nt lost it baton strike to the thigh is the prescribed method of inflicting pain while not causing damage 

while having somebody scream abuse in your face is not pleasant it is part of the job. (Though doing that and being surprised when you get a slap )
 apparently orders were to minimize arrests as they take bodies out of the cordon.
 so faced with abusive protesters not allowed to arrest them a modicum of pain is going to be handed out


----------



## two sheds (Apr 15, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I would think it also has a much more worthwhile political impact than chucking stuff at them too.



Yep. Some of the most successful protests were those by lovely old grannies protesting against veal exports. We need more grannies and protests that encourage grannies. 



> Indeed, you might argue that without extensive video support, featuring newsworthy police violence, non-violent protest is almost inevitably going to be presented as 'police deal with violent troublemakers' by one means or another and hence largely invalidated in terms of its intended communication goals.


We need portable kettle kits with a bit of a packed lunch and liquid refreshment and little chocolate treats. Synchronise mobile phones to double up as portable distributed sound systems. Make it a bit of a party, like.


----------



## Squatticus (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> All this makes me laugh at the someone who wanted to rehumanise [.sic] and engage with the police in a nice cosy way at a demo. "LOL".
> 
> Head in clouds. Head in clouds. You hippy feck!



^^This


----------



## laptop (Apr 15, 2009)

two sheds said:


> that encourage grannies.



I glimpsed that out of the corner of my eye and saw "exchange grannies".

A Granny Exchange, protests for the use of on.

Not a bad idea


----------



## harpo (Apr 15, 2009)

I doubt now would be the time to drive through any legislation banning photographic equipment.  I imagine *they* are fuming at the lost opportunity to slip it through quietly.

In any case, look at the number of people filming.  The busys haven't the resources to close them all down.  Nor to prevent anyone in the area carrying the equipment in the first place.  They haven't the legislative framework and they haven't got the resources.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 15, 2009)

Are there any camera phones that allow direct uploading/streaming in real time, so it's impossible to seize recorded images?


----------



## two sheds (Apr 15, 2009)

laptop said:


> I glimpsed that out of the corner of my eye and saw "exchange grannies".
> 
> A Granny Exchange, protests for the use of on.
> 
> Not a bad idea



Granny Exchange tickets should indeed be part of any kettle kit. Colostomy bag, too, for when we get caught short.


----------



## harpo (Apr 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Are there any camera phones that allow direct uploading/streaming in real time, so it's impossible to seize recorded images?




Apparently so, according to peeps on this thread.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Are there any camera phones that allow direct uploading/streaming in real time, so it's impossible to seize recorded images?



There's probably a photography forum thread to be started about this. What equipment, what techniques, how to avoid getting your footage deleted/seized, how to spot when something is kicking off, how to establish context etc.

Photography forum is public though isn't it? So is that the right place? Would such a discussion be deemed 'conspiracy to commit photography useful to a terrorist' or something?


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> That's the kind of thing that happens at football all the time. Looking at that video, you can see how entirely peaceful and quiet it all is until the cops decide to ramp up the tension.
> 
> The black guy appears to be polite throughout and he is met by aggression and rudeness. The 'wind them up until they respond and then go in mob handed' tactic is depressingly common.


 i have been attacked by the throat by the police before .. again in a totally non violent context .. i suspect it is a Hendon taught attack .. or maybe just passed from colleague to colleague .. it works btw .. being hit in the throat disbles better than many other attacks


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 15, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Not seen that one.  Do the BBC/Guardian/Times have it?


 its at the beginning of the attack on the woman .. its what sparked her protest to the robocop


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

The woman has come forward now according to the grauniad.  But on this (different, presumably earlier) take on it, they do report the events oddly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/15/g20-police-assault-tomlinson-ipcc

They describe the black guy as being in a 'scuffle' with police.  Personally, I don't seen him doing anything active - only getting pushed twice.  They also seem to imply the woman started off the exchange with the now suspended coper by swearing at him - ignoring the fact that he pushed her before that.

Bit odd really, given the evidence that's in the clip they have above the story.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 15, 2009)

likesfish said:


> copper has'nt lost it baton strike to the thigh is the prescribed method of inflicting pain while not causing damage
> 
> while having somebody scream abuse in your face is not pleasant it is part of the job. (Though doing that and being surprised when you get a slap )
> apparently orders were to minimize arrests as they take bodies out of the cordon.
> so faced with abusive protesters not allowed to arrest them a modicum of pain is going to be handed out


 sorry i have watched this vid a few times and i still see no 'abuse' from the women .. she was protesting that a young black man had just been assaulted a couple of yards away .. what was she suppossed to do? keep quiet?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> its at the beginning of the attack on the woman .. its what sparked her protest to the robocop


Ah, right.


----------



## xes (Apr 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Are there any camera phones that allow direct uploading/streaming in real time, so it's impossible to seize recorded images?



I know I can upload pictures directly to the internet from anywhere with a reception. Haven't tried a video, but my phone isn't the newest technology, so I'm willing to bet that "there's an ap for it"


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Are there any camera phones that allow direct uploading/streaming in real time, so it's impossible to seize recorded images?


Yes - it's been around for a while and available on some WM and Nokia devices. I think I remember seeing a BBC live news feature using a Nokia N95.





> Robert Scoble has gone wild for a new video streaming service for cellphones called Qik. It vaguely competes with Kyte, Seesmic and Ustream, but is perhaps closest to Kyte. Qik enables live video casting from a cell phone via any 3G/GPRS/Wi-fi Internet connection. Developed by Visivo Communications in Santa Clara, Qik has been in testing since November. Unlike sites where you have to wait for the video to be uploaded, Qik cleverly streams the video straight into the site with a 5 second delay.  [Dec 2007]
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/17/qik-streams-live-video-from-cell-to-web/


Even if your phone doesn't support live streaming, it only takes a few minutes to upload the footage from your phone to a website.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 15, 2009)

To be fair, I thought that woman was annoying and very likely to get a good thunk. Not defending the officer, more weary resignation about the conduct of officers and the likelihood of them lashing out to be fair. It would have been more of a surprise if she hadn't been hit tbh, albeit the dismissive, unnecessary way sucked.

What's equally unforgivable is that the goon is clearly concealing his number. What possible reason is there for that?


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 15, 2009)

BBC have changed their tune.

Yesterday: "The footage shows the woman swearing at a police officer who then appears to hit her in the face before apparently striking her on the leg with his baton."

Today: "He is shown hitting the woman in the face with his hand and her leg with his baton after allegedly being sworn at."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7999277.stm


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 15, 2009)

xes said:


> yeah but they've got to connect you to a terrorist cell before they can do alot.



Not particularly. Who can remember the old guy who got arrested at Westminster for getting a bit gobby under the Terrorism act?

Like Laptop says, they will do enough just to confiscate your equipment off you. 'Suspicion' is enough to do that. Even if they fail to convict you of anything they will stop images of their transgressions being published. I reckon we will see an increase in this after these recent incidents.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2009)

tarannau said:


> To be fair, I thought that woman was annoying and very likely to get a good thunk


She was remonstrating about another incident.  She was entitled to be vociferous.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

You can see some example archive videos and live mobile video streams here: http://qik.com/


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 15, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think that's a good demonstration of how the kettling tactic is not something you'd do if you wanted to maximise the chances of a peaceful demonstration, but rather what you'd do if you wanted to make protest as unpleasant as possible while staying within the letter of the law (mostly) and if possible provoking violence in a controlled manner to increase the unpleasantness and justify police heavy-handedness.
> 
> It's pretty clear from the longer version of the video, where you see a couple of innocents wandering into the kettle and a couple of people being stopped from leaving, that up until the point where the cops attack that black guy, the situation was peaceful, if not happy or contented. The longer it goes on though, the more pissed off the crowd is going to become and indeed we see the tension rise rapidly when for whatever reason, multiple cops start manhandling the black guy. It demonstrates how kettling a peaceful crowd and indiscriminately using aggression against that crowd creates a situation where violence becomes more likely than if the tactic were not used at all.


 cock up or conspiracy? .. lets be honest they not all that bright .. but i tend to go with your idea it is a wind up


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Yesterday: "The footage shows the woman swearing at a police officer who then appears to hit her in the face before apparently striking her on the leg with his baton."


That's what the radio was saying this morning.  It wasn't made clear she was complaining about someone being assaulted by cops.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 15, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> She was remonstrating about another incident.  She was entitled to be vociferous.



Entitled to be vociferous? I don't disagree, but have the police ever respected that right? IME if you query an officer in public you're likely to get arrested or battered.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Are there any camera phones that allow direct uploading/streaming in real time, so it's impossible to seize recorded images?



There's a web-cam that sends images straight to your email account for household security. So the technology is definitely there. Dont know if it just runs on mains power or can be used with batteries; or if it even films in realtime or just a series of stills.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 15, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> BBC have changed their tune.
> 
> Yesterday: "The footage shows the woman swearing at a police officer who then appears to hit her in the face before apparently striking her on the leg with his baton."
> 
> ...


 she only swears, and not even at him, after she is pushed away .. says "i'm just a fucking woman"  at which point he backhands her .. reckon he's done that before maybe to ex or wife .. if i was a journo


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2009)

tarannau said:


> have the police ever respected that right?


Indeed not, but it's important to note that her "annoyingness" had a context.  Important, because a lot of people who were previously neutral about the police are become politicized by these stories.


----------



## In Bloom (Apr 15, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Entitled to be vociferous? I don't disagree, but have the police ever respected that right? IME if you query an officer in public you're likely to get arrested or battered.


You seem to be under the impression that you're the only one who is aware of that fact.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 15, 2009)

xes said:


> I know I can upload pictures directly to the internet from anywhere with a reception. Haven't tried a video, but my phone isn't the newest technology, so I'm willing to bet that "there's an ap for it"



Yes.  You can upload images to a blogger account by setting up your phone (mms), to twitpic via email or video/ images via email/ mms at jive.ly.

I'm sure there must be countless others.  It's a growing market since twitter exploded.

Also important to note that, even if pictures are deleted, they can often be recovered.  Although taking more pictures/ video after the deletion would probably prevent this.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

tarannau said:


> To be fair, I thought that woman was annoying and very likely to get a good thunk.


Come on. It was a little woman shouting a bit. She wasn't being violent and she was responding to the police intimidation going on around her. 

The police are supposedly trained to deal with far worse situations, but if they resort to slapping and striking a woman just for shouting, it sets a worrying precedent for more expressive displays of dissent.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Also important to note that, even if pictures are deleted, they can often be recovered.  Although taking more pictures/ video after the deletion would probably prevent this.


Indeed. I'm thinking of drawing up a protesters guide to photographing demos, including tips like yours, plus references to the new streaming/uploading technologies and also ideas like regularly swapping over and hiding memory cards when kettled.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

I got arrested with some evidence on a memory card. I stuck it down the back of the silver foil in a fag packet. Later on, my solicitor got the hint when I offered him a cig and took the packet away with him and got it to the indymedia guys in our group. It was quite exciting at the time.


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

laptop said:


> It doesn't matter, from the point of view of getting the news out, what the grounds for conviction for an offence are.
> 
> What *does* matter, from the point of view of getting the news out, is what stupid powers of arrest exist to be abused.


But what also matters is that people realise that the police are lying when they invoke s76 (or s44) as a reason to not take or delete photos, and aren't afraid of saying No.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Are there any camera phones that allow direct uploading/streaming in real time, so it's impossible to seize recorded images?



didn't someone here link to a live stream from a mobile on April 1st?


----------



## Callie (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> The police are supposedly trained to deal with far worse situations, but if they resort to slapping and striking a woman just for shouting, it sets a worrying precedent for more expressive displays of dissent.



"If they" hehe From the actions of police that I have witness I thought that kind of thing was standard practice.

It will be really interesting to see what happens with this and Ian Tomlinson's  case.

If heads do roll it sets a precedent that I would imagine the police will not be very happy with at all..... it not going to happen is it?


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 15, 2009)

ddraig said:


> didn't someone here link to a live stream from a mobile on April 1st?



They did.



Retro said:


> http://qik.com/video/1362642 - live stream from some guys phone, amazing


----------



## ddraig (Apr 15, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> They did.



cheers!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

Heh, nice Steve Bell retrospective here.


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

At 01:13, "People want the million dollar photo of us hitting someone", how prescient.

"What if one of the police officer's did hit a woman what's got a camera?"
"The PC would come unstuck, wouldn't he, simple as that."


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 15, 2009)

winjer said:


> At 01:13, "People want the million dollar photo of us hitting someone", how prescient.



argh I read the comments


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 15, 2009)

"It later emerged that the woman at the centre of the second alleged assault, identified as 'Nicky', is to be represented by PR guru Max Clifford."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8000246.stm


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> argh I read the comments


Never scroll down!

Someone who didn't want David Hoffman to get the million dollar shot:
 (03:53)


----------



## In Bloom (Apr 15, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> argh I read the comments


There aren't any


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> There aren't any


I pasted the wrong link at first, the more famous:


----------



## In Bloom (Apr 15, 2009)

Ah right, yeah, some brain breaking shit there.  I think XKCD covered that little phenomenon best.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 15, 2009)

harpo said:


> Apparently so, according to peeps on this thread.



look out for Kyte http://www.kyte.tv   - essentially live broadcasting from your phone, there actually won't be a need to live your life any more , just spend your time broadcasting everone else's around you , as they do the same, and eventually everyone just gives up and goes home to watch it all on a pc  . The spectacle will collapse under the weight of it's own innovations, or something . 

it'll make the camera riots of today look like a luddites tea party


----------



## pk (Apr 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Indeed. I'm thinking of drawing up a protesters guide to photographing demos, including tips like yours, plus references to the new streaming/uploading technologies and also ideas like regularly swapping over and hiding memory cards when kettled.



There is also the simple method of wireless video - it's a little pricey but you can send images from a cheap video camera over 500 yards away where another person might be able to record it to a chip from well outside of the kettle.

I'd be happy to look into the video side of things - and sound recordings are important to give context too.

Another thing is to get your fellow demonstrators to hold up cameras, even if they are broken, to give the impression that everyone is filming them, so they will not be able to distinguish a working camera from one that can happily be smashed up as part of the process.

Technology will help to force these pig cunts into treating demonstrators properly, as todays suspensions prove.


----------



## harpo (Apr 15, 2009)

pk said:


> There is also the simple method of wireless video - it's a little pricey but you can send images from a cheap video camera over 500 yards away where another person might be able to record it to a chip from well outside of the kettle.
> 
> I'd be happy to look into the video side of things - and sound recordings are important to give context too.
> 
> ...



That's an excellent tactic


----------



## pk (Apr 15, 2009)

harpo said:


> That's an excellent tactic



It's not hard to find some dead video cameras or video phones kicking around - I have around 8 or 9 in my house but I'm a freak who hates to throw things away... a quick phone call to friends and family for anything with a lens on it should mean a nice collection to share or lend once at the front line.

If everyone did it...


----------



## The Groke (Apr 15, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> And whether the excuses work or not, more people will lose faith in the police and the power of the state to protect them.



Lose faith/wake up

potato/potahto


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> Yeah, but how many people share that opinion outside of Urban75?



Anyone with an ounce of good sense, you'd hope.


----------



## The Groke (Apr 15, 2009)

cesare said:


> _Deserved a slap?_
> 
> Is that how you approach life? Small woman (your wife/partner/daughter) gives you some verbal justifying a good slap from you? Choice.




Seems to be a common opinion running through the comments on the Times report too.



If they do post my comment I am worried the sarcasm will be lost on the meatheads.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> When should forced be used to deal with irate people like her,or should they be allowed to cling onto the police like monkeys without being swatted off?


Was she using her 3rd arm (TM 4thwrite) to "cling on"?


----------



## Squatticus (Apr 15, 2009)

> 76 Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc. (1) This section applies where in proceedings for an offence—
> (a) an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence (“D”) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and
> (b) the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person (“V”) was reasonable in the circumstances.
> (2) The defences are—
> ...



In summary, s.76 of the Criminal Law Act 2008 allows you to use reasonable force in self defense, including the defense of other people.   Cops look out!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2009)

XR75 said:


> When should forced be used to deal with irate people like her,or should they be allowed to cling onto the police like monkeys without being swatted off?



You're obviously not over-acquainted with the ambit of a police officer's powers. If you were, you'd know that in terms of public order the goal is to use the minimum possible physical force *regardless of provocation*, *not* to give someone a back-hander to the face.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 15, 2009)

Squatticus said:


> In summary, s.76 of the Criminal Law Act 2008 allows you to use reasonable force in self defense, including the defense of other people.   Cops look out!




I don't think it applies to self-defence against the state though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Well what's most telling in both the Tomlinson and the case of this lady is, other than the actual acts of violence, the absolute indifference of the other officers that witness the acts. To me this clearly demonstrates that it's an accepted form of policing by the police.



Either that, or that the institutional culture of "us versus them" is so strongly ingrained as to render the idea of police accountability ridiculous.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2009)

winjer said:


> No they didn't, the police do not pass laws, and in LDMG's opinion (and the JCHR's and the Home Office), the law does not say that.


Thanks for saying that, so I didn't have to.
For an anarchist enumbers has a very poor grasp of the legislative system he wants toppled.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2009)

two sheds said:


> Granny Exchange tickets should indeed be part of any kettle kit. Colostomy bag, too, for when we get caught short.



I've missed demos purely because of the likelihood of "kettling" being used. Having an inflammatory bowel disease, I can't risk being detained away from a kharzi, unless I want my trews to look like a battlefield.
I wonder if I can take the Home Office to the ECHR for denying me my right to protest through their use of non-targetted "crowd control" tactics?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> i have been attacked by the throat by the police before .. again in a totally non violent context .. i suspect it is a Hendon taught attack .. or maybe just passed from colleague to colleague .. it works btw .. being hit in the throat disbles better than many other attacks



It can also kill you very easily.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Either that, or that the institutional culture of "us versus them" is so strongly ingrained as to render the idea of police accountability ridiculous.



I think this probably very important. 

You'll notice that many police and far-right reactions to this footage tend to be along the lines of 'they must have been giving cheek', 'they were arguing the toss' or whatever and a kind of utter bewilderment that large numbers of their fellow citizens might possibly think that insufficiently submissive behaviour towards the police didn't automatically completely justify any kind of violent response. 

I think supportive governments, useless watchdogs (IPCC) and submissive (BBC) or actively malevolent (The Sun) media allowing them free reign to use dirty pre-emptive PR tactics have let them get away with doing horrible shit to peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders for so long they actually think it's perfectly normal.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 15, 2009)

Second item on BBC news at ten AGAIN.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 15, 2009)

have you seen this yet
NEW: G20 'victim' turns to Max Clifford for PR 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6099525.ece?

i wondered why her story was being picked out among the many

oh this was at the memorial didn't realise that, it wasn't made clear at all


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 15, 2009)

Newsnight leading on police and protest.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> have you seen this yet
> NEW: G20 'victim' turns to Max Clifford for PR
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6099525.ece?
> 
> ...



Sad that she's gone to Max Clifford (I suspect the approach was actually the other way round - his card shoved through the door by one of his associates amid the press siege ).  Suspect he thinks he can move some units and get some GMTV appearances for her with a '16st 6ft 2 copper versus diminutive...' blah blah story.

The times, like the guardian are running with the 'she started it' line:



> The video which emerged this week on YouTube shows her shouting at police before an officer wearing body armour hits her face with the back of his hand.



whereas the video shows he pushes her before any 'swearing' takes place.

E2a: could be counter productive, given that Clifford is universally regarded as a complete arse


----------



## soulman (Apr 15, 2009)

I watched the video earlier and what shocked me was that the policeman who lashed out and hit her seemed to be wearing some kind of armour on the arm he used. Disgusting.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 15, 2009)

If the media are camping outside your door, calling you nonstop and shoving cards thorugh your letterbox, then calling Clifford is one of the things  - quite possibly the only thing - a non-media person could think of to do.

So I can understand why she did it; and now it is the easiest smear of all.

They can't make her out to be a violent anarchist - she works in an animal sanctuary. Child porn  on her computer - no, won't wash -  so what's the easiest smear?

One frantic call to Clifford - not even made by her, quite possibly - her sister might have made it - and bingo.

She's 'on the make'.

Just how Amanda Platell tried to smear the Tomlinson family in the Mail.

What would you do, if the media were outside your flat and you couldn't leave, and you were an international news story?

Did she speak to the media before the story broke? No. And it's 15 April now and it was 2nd April then.

I have every sympathy for her; how the fuck does anyone know how to deal with a media storm until it happens?


----------



## pk (Apr 15, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> What would you do, if the media were outside your flat and you couldn't leave, and you were an international news story?



Publish and edit my own news releases from my own home, using a blog and Youtube.

I wouldn't call Clifford if he were the last man on earth.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 15, 2009)

I've never said this before but. He is not all that he seems; he took on the 7/7 survivors and families on the first anniversary for nothing, without publicity. Before, I was getting up at 4am and working til 2am, and trying not to lose my job, taking up to 6 calls an hour from UK and international media, because I had a blog, and was therefore visible, and had somehow become the unpaid press officer and first point of contact of any journo wanting a 7/7 victim interview. I had a breakdown, he stepped in, and put 4 full time members of staff on it.


He negotiated a decent wheel chair for a double amputee, he helped people get compensation, and he protected those who did not want to speak, held the firestorm at bay, and never said a word or asked for anything. He gave me and the families over GBP100, 000   of representation for nothing.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 15, 2009)

I don't see what else I could have done, nobody else would have done that, nobody else could have done that, nor did they offer or even think to ask.

There were all sorts of people who were supposed to look after the 7/7 victims, including whole Govt. departments  - they did fuck all.

I can understand why she called him ( if she called him): he does some rotten things, but the media  will back off if he is sorting it , and he does more than people know to protect people thrust into the media storm who aren't slebs, who didn't ask for it, because he is about the only person who can, and will.

PS> I did not ask for, or want, or get,  any money when he helped me and the wheelchair was the only payment I'm aware of, and it was needed, the bloke had been fucked over by his PCT and it was only Clifford who got  them moving.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 15, 2009)

it's smear by association basically innit.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 15, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> it's smear by association basically innit.



yep, and it has worked.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 15, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> yep, and it has worked.


well it often does unfortunately.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 15, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> He is not all that he seems.



ISTR he's also very politically motivated because of bad treatment his daughter received on the NHS. 

Plus it's a little too early to judge his deal with the beaten woman. Maybe she plans to put her fees from the press to good use. Maybe he's not taking a cut.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2009)

As i touched on in my last post, its understandable how this could have come about, in the heat of the siege.  Equally, there will be guilt by association aplenty, from the same right wing 'commentators' who have been referring to Ian Tomlinson as a 'homeless alcoholic' all week.  However, even if its understandable, its still fair comment to note that going along with Max Clifford is not the _ideal _move(if indeed she has done - lets wait and see.  She seemed to be talking directly to the grauniad this morning).


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 15, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> "It later emerged that the woman at the centre of the second alleged assault, identified as 'Nicky', is to be represented by PR guru Max Clifford."
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8000246.stm





Actually, despite the result that has been scored against the old bill; we're actually promoting the _acceleration_ of a surveillance society here.

A little bit twisted, underneath it all, despite the victory.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 15, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Actually, despite the result that has been scored against the old bill; we're actually promoting the _acceleration_ of a surveillance society here.
> 
> A little bit twisted, underneath it all, despite the victory.



Oh, I dunno. the video evidence has come from someone posting on youtube. if it an acceleration of the surveillance society, it least it's proving to be relatively democratic iyswim


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 16, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Oh, I dunno. the video evidence has come from someone posting on youtube. if it an acceleration of the surveillance society, it least it's proving to be relatively democratic iyswim



Yes, but it's the thin end of the wedge. You only need to have fallen foul of some eejit and witness them sprout smears on the internet about you to deduce that the same fuckers would gladly meet you for a beer, give you a few lines, film it, and you're out on a limb come monday morning.

Yes, good to film the police so everyone can see what they're like. But I see dark clouds ahead too.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 16, 2009)

how _did_ the story break?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 16, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> how _did_ the story break?


the story of the woman (seemingly definitely) getting battered or the story of the woman (maybe) having used pro pr?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 16, 2009)

It will drive us all apart, in the end.

"LADBROKES...."


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 16, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've missed demos purely because of the likelihood of "kettling" being used. Having an inflammatory bowel disease, I can't risk being detained away from a kharzi, unless I want my trews to look like a battlefield.
> I wonder if I can take the Home Office to the ECHR for denying me my right to protest through their use of non-targetted "crowd control" tactics?


It's pure discrimination against teh disabledz innit!  Take your case to the European Court of Human Rights!  

We're gonna fight...  For the right...  To protest without our access to lavatory facilities being unduly restricted. 

Not quite as catchy as the song, I admit, but I hazard a guess it could catch on if all teh disabledz started singing it all in one go.  I iz teh disabledz, and I would join in, but you really wouldn't want me to, my voice is like a weapon of mass destruction of eardrums.


----------



## laptop (Apr 16, 2009)

Guardian compendium of videos - don't know how many have been posted...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/15/g20-protest-police-videos-catalogue


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 16, 2009)

I can understand her asking Max Clifford to get involved and/or Max Clifford offering his services (paid or unpaid).

Lots of people aren't media savvy.  

I must admit, as a journalist, I was thinking, when I saw the video, ooh, I know everyone's trying to identify the cop who covered up his number, but who is she, what's her story?  And also the bloke who was manhandled, who is he, what's his story? Was he just an innocent bystander trying to get home from work? Was he a peaceful protester thinking this is all a bit too crowded, too many police, don't like where this might potentially be heading?  Or did he have to pick a child up from school?  Or was he bursting for the loo and feared he was about to p!ss his pants in front of a crowd of people, and maybe that's why he was apparently pleading to leave the kettle?  But I haven't been working this particular story recently, or else I might have asked around to see if anyone I knew who was there happened to see the incident, if anyone knew who the central characters were.  Any and every journalist would have been wondering who they were.

And for a regular person, if you have loads of journalists phoning your house, phoning your mobile, maybe turning up on your doorstep and ringing your bell and asking you for comments... Who you gonna call?  Well, not Ghostbusters, for starters, probably you're going to ring 118 118 and ask for the offices of Max Clifford.  I know if I was a regular Joanne Public who didn't know anyone in the media, who had been featured on a video that was being quoted on forums, shown on the mainstream telly news, was being referred to by the newspapers, then that's what I'd probably do... call directory enquiries and ask for Max Clifford's number and then phone him and say "It was me in that video!  Heeeeeeeeelp!"

I mean, how many other 'agents' or media savvy PR people do laypeople know about?  

So I don't think anyone should be too disparaging about his involvement.

Just ask yourself, if you inadvertently found yourself featured on a video, and found yourself at the centre of a media storm, who would you call?  What would you do?


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 16, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> have you seen this yet
> NEW: G20 'victim' turns to Max Clifford for PR
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6099525.ece?
> 
> ...






			
				From Times Online 
April 15 said:
			
		

> G20 'victim' Nicky Thompson turns to Max Clifford for PR advice
> (Akira Suemori/AP)
> Nicky Thompson, seen wearing a brown jacket and cap, has asked Max Clifford to advise her after she was allegedly assaulted by a police officer during G20 protests
> 
> ...


I don't quite get why this is supposed to be a "bizarre turn of events," I mean, as I've said previously, you're average layperson caught up in a media storm is going to be inundated with calls, call directory enquiries and ask for the only name they know, i.e. Max Clifford.  What's so "bizarre" about that?


----------



## laptop (Apr 16, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I don't quite get why this is supposed to be a "bizarre turn of events"



I think it's a case of the journalist attempting to imagine how the non-journalist non-news-subjects for whom they write feel about how news-subjects feel about journalists and getting as lost as I hope you are this far into the sentence 


Either that, or total lack of empathy. The vicious comment on this thread came from someone who points a camera at people for a living. Everyone I've ever known who points a camera at people for a living hates having cameras pointed at them - and several have said, yes, maybe being behind the camera is the best place to avoid having a camera pointed at them... so they do not, in fact, have the faintest what it's like.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 16, 2009)

Slightly off topic but, it'll be interesting to see how the SmashEDO/ReclaimTheStreets is Policed in Brighton in May ....


----------



## winjer (Apr 16, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> have you seen this yet
> NEW: G20 'victim' turns to Max Clifford for PR
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6099525.ece?
> 
> i wondered why her story was being picked out among the many


You have it backwards, her story was highlighted, the press got interested then she/a relative/a friend hired Clifford to deal with the mob outside her door.


----------



## winjer (Apr 16, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> I don't think it applies to self-defence against the state though.


It does, comes up in lots of the caselaw for Assault PC.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 16, 2009)

(editor: here's an unexplained link to caption free, source-free, FAQ-busting 250k  image of the cop. e18996 - please make some effort here and help others)

post being erm:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think this probably very important.
> 
> You'll notice that many police and far-right reactions to this footage tend to be along the lines of 'they must have been giving cheek', 'they were arguing the toss' or whatever and a kind of utter bewilderment that large numbers of their fellow citizens might possibly think that insufficiently submissive behaviour towards the police didn't automatically completely justify any kind of violent response.


What strikes me is that the police services, whose entire supposed _raison d'etre_ is public service via an "open" system of interaction, act increasingly as though they're in a "closed" system where discipline *must* be enforced, such as the military.
Now, 20 years ago I'd have blamed this on the large amount of recruits that came to the police from the military, but that's no longer true *anywhere* in the command chain of the police services, except for MoD-plod.
I get the impression that perhaps the upper echelons of the police services might be encouraging this creeping "militarisation" as a method of retaining remit and funding (i.e. securing parts of their empires against the depradations of the "security service") but without either looking to history or calculating (if they give a damn) the price that the public might pay for such a shift.


> I think supportive governments, useless watchdogs (IPCC) and submissive (BBC) or actively malevolent (The Sun) media allowing them free reign to use dirty pre-emptive PR tactics have let them get away with doing horrible shit to peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders for so long they actually think it's perfectly normal.


I suspect that the normalisation has been ongoing for longer even than _The Sun_ has been published. Elements of the media have always been willing to either submit or play along, and the government has a centuries-long history of supporting reaction and entrenched interests. As for independent oversight...


----------



## Squatticus (Apr 16, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> I don't think it applies to self-defence against the state though.



Depends on whether the constable is acting lawfully or not.   So I imagine, if he was attacking someone you defended, there would be an argument about the proportionality of the force the officer was using.


----------



## Callie (Apr 16, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> Actually, despite the result that has been scored against the old bill; we're actually promoting the _acceleration_ of a surveillance society here.
> 
> A little bit twisted, underneath it all, despite the victory.



I had the same thought but surveillance is being used against the general public anyway. So why not turn the cameras back on the state?

There was a bunch of cops filming school kids in greggs one morning
  You would think they might have more important things to do really.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 16, 2009)

Callie said:


> I had the same thought but surveillance is being used against the general public anyway. So why not turn the cameras back on the state?
> 
> There was a bunch of cops filming school kids in greggs one morning
> You would think they might have more important things to do really.



Yes Callie, but it can really help to identify the young thugs in society as early as possible so they can join the police straight from school.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 16, 2009)

Callie said:


> I had the same thought but surveillance is being used against the general public anyway. So why not turn the cameras back on the state?
> 
> There was a bunch of cops filming school kids in greggs one morning
> You would think they might have more important things to do really.



So, they film school kids yet are trying to extend terror laws so they cannot be filmed themselves?

Sinister!


----------



## Winston Legthigh (Apr 16, 2009)

theres this figure of 50k being quoted everywhere as the sum clifford has 'won' for her.

but no actual evidence of this exclusive interview.

so does the 50k exist, or is that just a fabrication?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 16, 2009)

Winston Legthigh said:


> theres this figure of 50k being quoted everywhere as the sum clifford has 'won' for her.
> 
> but no actual evidence of this exclusive interview.
> 
> so does the 50k exist, or is that just a fabrication?



I read that she was 'seeking' £50k for her story.

Could be bollocks being peddled to discredit it her along with her being a 'shop lifter'...


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 17, 2009)

winjer said:


> You have it backwards, *her story was highlighted*, the press got interested then she/a relative/a friend hired Clifford to deal with the mob outside her door.



how? why hers?


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 17, 2009)

does it damager her case to get an pr person, remember the judge who threw out the previous kettling case cos the women spoke to the media afterwards.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

Tomorrows front pages












http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...e_National_Newspapers_On_Friday_April_17_2009


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2009)

Whose mad idea was the "Whipped by the Taliban" bit? Mind you, that's some bruise.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> Guardian compendium of videos - don't know how many have been posted...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/15/g20-protest-police-videos-catalogue



does anyone heart race, hands sweat, feel immense anger and dread by just watching those?


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Whose mad idea was the "Whipped by the Taliban" bit? Mind you, that's some bruise.



i wonder if she had bruised face, they going to excuse the baton to the back of the leg as standard practice.


----------



## laptop (Apr 17, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> does it damager her case to get an pr person



There's of course a risk that it'll damage her reputation - it's already been used to knock her as though she's money-grubbing - by papers among those most known for the opposite, wossname, money-dangling.

Max C on handling Jade's widower: 

Don't rule out the possibility that Max C himself has thought "enough is enough, something's got to be done about this".

And it does take some skill to keep the story alive long enough to ensure there is action. The Guardian's been very good at rationing out the relevations in what could have been a one-day outrage (thanks, Duncan Campbell, I think). But the ex-brodsheet stories are getting a bit strained now. 

And it just happens that the interests of political reform - pressure severe enough to lead to a really embarassing inquiry, for example, are similar to the interests of Max C maximising his percentage.

As for the £50k - that would have been Max opening the bidding, wouldn't it? 




lostexpectation said:


> remember the judge her threw out the previous kettling case cos the women spoke to the media afterwards.



He did? Link would be lovely!


----------



## two sheds (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Whose mad idea was the "Whipped by the Taliban" bit? Mind you, that's some bruise.



Product placement for you: compare your product to that of the market leader. Quite effective I thought.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 17, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I've never said this before but. He is not all that he seems; he took on the 7/7 survivors and families on the first anniversary for nothing, without publicity. Before, I was getting up at 4am and working til 2am, and trying not to lose my job, taking up to 6 calls an hour from UK and international media, because I had a blog, and was therefore visible, and had somehow become the unpaid press officer and first point of contact of any journo wanting a 7/7 victim interview. I had a breakdown, he stepped in, and put 4 full time members of staff on it.
> 
> 
> He negotiated a decent wheel chair for a double amputee, he helped people get compensation, and he protected those who did not want to speak, held the firestorm at bay, and never said a word or asked for anything. He gave me and the families over GBP100, 000   of representation for nothing.


campaigning for tories, calling max clifford what the difference?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 17, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> What strikes me is that the police services, whose entire supposed _raison d'etre_ is public service via an "open" system of interaction, act increasingly as though they're in a "closed" system where discipline *must* be enforced, such as the military.
> Now, 20 years ago I'd have blamed this on the large amount of recruits that came to the police from the military, but that's no longer true *anywhere* in the command chain of the police services, except for MoD-plod.
> I get the impression that perhaps the upper echelons of the police services might be encouraging this creeping "militarisation" as a method of retaining remit and funding (i.e. securing parts of their empires against the depradations of the "security service") but without either looking to history or calculating (if they give a damn) the price that the public might pay for such a shift.
> 
> I suspect that the normalisation has been ongoing for longer even than _The Sun_ has been published. Elements of the media have always been willing to either submit or play along, and the government has a centuries-long history of supporting reaction and entrenched interests. As for independent oversight...



Are they getting _training _from the military maybe? They're certainly acting as though they'd taken lessons in public order policing from the Para. I guess we should be glad that they aren't issued with bayonets eh? 

The way the cops who repeatedly shot the unfortunate Mr Menezes in the face had evidently adopted the SAS/IDF approach displayed at Gibraltar but added a bunch of typical rozzer incompetence (at least on that occasion the SAS had the sense to execute people who were actually _in_ the IRA, even if they weren't armed or dangerous at the time of their death, rather than some random bystander) 

I'd be willing to bet that during the Thatcher era a whole bunch of military riot instigation/control and coercion techniques were passed on to the cops that have continued to affect their training and doctrine to this day.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 17, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> campaigning for tories calling max clifford what the difference?



what


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 17, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> does anyone heart race, hands sweat, feel immense anger and dread by just watching those?



Yes.


----------



## Lily (Apr 17, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I know if I was a regular Joanne Public who didn't know anyone in the media, who had been featured on a video that was being quoted on forums, shown on the mainstream telly news, was being referred to by the newspapers, then that's what I'd probably do... call directory enquiries and ask for Max Clifford's number and then phone him and say "It was me in that video!  Heeeeeeeeelp!"


Me too!!


----------



## albionism (Apr 17, 2009)

I think it's good that she  is appearing in the right wing rags. No point in preaching to the converted.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 17, 2009)

Max is much maligned but is not as bad as painted.


----------



## ohmyliver (Apr 17, 2009)

albionism said:


> I think it's good that she  is appearing in the right wing rags. No point in preaching to the converted.



much as reading the Mail angries up my blood, there has been some interesting articles (inbetween the usual loathesome stories) like
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ible-injuries-peaceful-country-folk-2004.html
although they do seem to forget that the politicisation of the police and civil service is one of Thatcher's legacies.

Also in the Tory blogosphere again there's been some very anti police policy articles like
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/04/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes.html


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 17, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> does anyone heart race, hands sweat, feel immense anger and dread by just watching those?



I made the mistake of watching a couple yesterday while listening to Omen by the Prodigy. Had to switch them off and go and make a cup of tea.

'Now, the writing's on the wall, and it won't go away...'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Whose mad idea was the "Whipped by the Taliban" bit? Mind you, that's some bruise.



That headline could not be more crap and will not win any sympathy.


----------



## Corax (Apr 17, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> That headline could not be more crap and will not win any sympathy.


I expect it will scarcely draw comment from the paper's readership.  Sensationalist and exaggerated headlines are their stock in trade, and the people that read the rag will be entirely used to them.

See also "The Sandwich Gestapo!!" on a school that had strict rules on packed lunches, and many many more...


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

ohmyliver said:


> much as reading the Mail angries up my blood, there has been some interesting articles (inbetween the usual loathesome stories) like
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ible-injuries-peaceful-country-folk-2004.html


Highly misleading though, although people were hit with batons in the middle of the day, when the police finally cleared the square that evening they didn't even carry batons, just shuffled very slowly forwards, any other group that had thrown that much stuff at the police would have been baton-charged.









http://www.flickr.com/photos/wnjr/sets/72157616911357804/


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> how? why hers?


A clear video at the right time. The press are all looking for a scoop here, after seeing the Guardian's stories attract worldwide interest.


----------



## ohmyliver (Apr 17, 2009)

winjer said:


> Highly misleading though, although people were hit with batons in the middle of the day, when the police finally cleared the square that evening they didn't even carry batons, just shuffled very slowly forwards, any other group that had thrown that much stuff at the police would have been baton-charged.



Indeed, but it's an interesting Mail article as it seems to tacitly acknowledge that the police are increasingly brutal state enforcers 

They also seem to gloss over the fact that Thatcher wasn't exactly blameless in the politicisation of the police force


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> He did? Link would be lovely!


Presumably an interpretation of:

"The appellant, like others who were present, was not adequately dressed for the occasion. She had an 11 month old baby who was in a crèche. She had planned to be on the demonstration for two or three hours before collecting her, but in the event she was prevented from doing so. Nevertheless the judge held that she was not much distressed, but was stimulated by the event. At various times in the afternoon she had a megaphone and told people not to push. She was in the company of friends throughout. When she came out of the police cordon she did not rush home but participated in a TV interview and responded to questions from the press."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090128/austin-1.htm

From the original:

"Excerpts from the video evidence were played to her showing herself with the megaphone at various times in the afternoon. Although looking wet and cold, she appears in good humour. She correctly points out that many of the members of the crowd around her appear similarly. At the end of the day, as people were released, she had been reassured by her friend that her daughter was all right and she did not herself rush home. She invited people present to pass to her on paper or via e-mail their e-mail addresses or telephone numbers. She said a lot of people's details were recorded on scraps of paper or leaflets which she held, and many people did contact her. As she came out of the police cordon she participated in a TV interview and responded to questions from the press before leaving for home."

"I find that Ms Austin was well aware before she joined any demonstrations on 1st May 2001 that there was a substantial risk of violence and other criminal activities on the part of a minority of the demonstrators that day. This prospect did not cause her any alarm, and she was willing to take the risk of it occurring in proximity to her. She did not, of course, contemplate or take the risk of any unlawful acts on the part of the police. Everyone is entitled to assume that public authorities will at all times act lawfully. During the brief period starting at about 3.30pm when she realised she would not able to leave to collect baby, and ending when she had made alternative arrangements, I have no doubt that she was genuinely anguished, as any mother in that position would be. Apart from that, what was actually done by the police that day did not cause her significant distress. On the contrary, I find that she was stimulated by it at the time, and subsequently proud of what she had done while at Oxford Circus."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/480.html


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

ohmyliver said:


> They also seem to gloss over the fact that Thatcher wasn't exactly blameless in the politicisation of the police force


Purposely I'd say, as with all their criticism of Ian Blair being centred on his supposed socialism and concern for diversity and multiculturalism.


----------



## laptop (Apr 17, 2009)

winjer said:


> Presumably an interpretation of:
> 
> 
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090128/austin-1.htm
> ...



Thanks!

* practices crying "Can't stop, they've imprisoned me illegally for six hours and I have to get the baby" straight to camera *


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 17, 2009)

ohmyliver said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ible-injuries-peaceful-country-folk-2004.html



priceless! although the tone of the article is pathetic really, 'we were beaten up by the police more than you', rather than any sense of a shared experience of brutality at the hands of the police.

and it's bollocks to say that the CA march was entirely peaceful, there were a number of bumpkins picking fights with the police because a) picking fights with those who disagree with them is what they do (years of hunt sabbing can testify to this); and b) they tend to think themselves above the law anyway.


----------



## Squatticus (Apr 17, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> does anyone heart race, hands sweat, feel immense anger and dread by just watching those?



Yes.   It is extremely difficult to restrain one's anger in the face of it.   Still, we must.


----------



## Squatticus (Apr 17, 2009)

Re _The Daily Fail_, you should read their comments boards from before the G20 scandal.   Their readers _hate_ the cops.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Are they getting _training _from the military maybe? They're certainly acting as though they'd taken lessons in public order policing from the Para. I guess we should be glad that they aren't issued with bayonets eh?


There's certainly been an increase in inter-service security exercises and training post-"9/11", and we know, for example, that army recon and surveillance elements were involved in the de Menezes fiasco. I suspect that the aggressive "public order" policing is all their own work though, an attempt to look 'ard to their international colleagues.
Interestingly enough, there was a CRS dude on the R4 news earlier, saying as how, from the footage of the protest on 1/4 and the vigil for Mr. Tomlinson, our "riot police" were extremely ill-disciplined. 


> The way the cops who repeatedly shot the unfortunate Mr Menezes in the face had evidently adopted the SAS/IDF approach displayed at Gibraltar but added a bunch of typical rozzer incompetence (at least on that occasion the SAS had the sense to execute people who were actually _in_ the IRA, even if they weren't armed or dangerous at the time of their death, rather than some random bystander)


Of course, many of the police may not have had either the "baptism of fire" or the training that soldiers might, so fuck-ups would appear to be more likely. You join the army knowing that at the last your job boils down to "kill and/or be killed". I don't believe that most policemen have that in mind at all when they join a police service.


> I'd be willing to bet that during the Thatcher era a whole bunch of military riot instigation/control and coercion techniques were passed on to the cops that have continued to affect their training and doctrine to this day.


Thatcher and before. Kitson and his contemporaries were widely read in the 60s and 70s by people with an interest in provocation and control.


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

Squatticus said:


> Re _The Daily Fail_, you should read their comments boards from before the G20 scandal.   Their readers _hate_ the cops.


Only Labour's cops though.


----------



## Corax (Apr 17, 2009)

CRS?

All I can come up with is Child Rebel Soldier.  Although they _might_ have interviewed Pharrel or Kanye about it, I think it's unlikely....


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

French riot squad, Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité.


----------



## Corax (Apr 17, 2009)

winjer said:


> French riot squad, Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité.



Ah, thanks.

My second best guess was Consumer Recreation Services, but "The Game" was just a film... or was it?


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 17, 2009)

Squatticus said:


> Yes.   It is extremely difficult to restrain one's anger in the face of it.   Still, we must.



yeah having been in a couple of slightly similar situations, (well only one police riot).

i actually stopped going to protests becuase I once didn't restrain my 'dreadanger', which I verbally lost it at some fellow protesters who i thought were putting others in danger,(but they weren't really its just my dread)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interestingly enough, there was a CRS dude on the R4 news earlier, saying as how, from the footage of the protest on 1/4 and the vigil for Mr. Tomlinson, our "riot police" were extremely ill-disciplined.



CRS tired to batter a load of us a train to geneva, very small space -they ended up hurting themselves more than us.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> CRS tired to batter a load of us a train to geneva, very small space -they ended up hurting themselves more than us.



So, 10/10 for enthusiasm, 0/10 for technique?


----------



## Mooncat (Apr 18, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> CRS tired to batter a load of us a train to geneva, very small space -they ended up hurting themselves more than us.



Didn't much the same thing happen at Agincourt?


----------

