G20 death

[SplashNblub]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
Words fail me on this one.
A disgrace.

[Pandi]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
Words fail me on this one.
A disgrace.


Why?-**** happens.

[Stevie_k]

Why?-**** happens.

To innocent partys?

If what is written is true this is absolutely awful!

[mpfmark]

the copper will be jailed...but the man is dead now

[Pandi]

If what is written is true this is absolutely awful!
Was in a left wing paper stevie-sadly bloke got caught up in "bish bash" with cops.At least he had the right to march in the first place.

[SplashNblub]

Was in a left wing paper stevie-sadly bloke got caught up in "bish bash" with cops.At least he had the right to march in the first place.
He may have had the right to march but he was not marching! Just read the article. A simple working class man trying to get home to watch England play after a days work selling papers.
Is this what you fought for your country for? The right for our police to attack a man from behind who had his hands in his pockets?

[Shakermaker]

What the hell was he doing dawdling along like that in front of that amount of police when he knows full well what is going on?

[NotVeryFast]

the copper will be jailed
There is about as much chance of that as there is of Blair and Bush being tried for war crimes, or of Jacqui Smith being sacked for her expense claims.

[swimbar]

What the hell was he doing dawdling along like that in front of that amount of police when he knows full well what is going on?

Clearly not using any common sense.

[NotVeryFast]

What the hell was he doing dawdling along like that in front of that amount of police when he knows full well what is going on?
Perhaps he thought "look at all these protesters I have to get past to get home, if I stick close to the police I should be safe".

[swimbar]

Perhaps he thought "look at all these protesters I have to get past to get home, if I stick close to the police I should be safe".

Or 'I think I will be nosey and go and see what these people are doing throwing bricks and bottles at police and smashing Bank Windows. This could be fun to see' Instead of going home by a safe alternative route!!

[Hannah_111]

What the hell was he doing dawdling along like that in front of that amount of police when he knows full well what is going on?

Clearly not using any common sense.

The paper said he was just trying to get home - maybe there was no other way to get home, or maybe he didn't realise the extent of what was going on until he was in the middle it. And to be honest who really thinks it's dangerous to walk near police anyway when you aren't doing anything wrong - I bet the poor bloke thought he was safer there. Either way he didn't deserve what he got in the slightest. It appears from the video (and early CCTV videos) that he didn't do anything wrong, and his body language with his head down and hand in his pockets makes it pretty clearly, IMO, that he's trying to avoid trouble. It was a completely unprovoked attack, and it's absolutely disgusting. Anyway, I couldn't give a toss whether 10 minutes ago he had been rioting, or whatever, at that moment in time there was absoutely no need for the police to deal with him in that way.

[Hannah_111]

Or 'I think I will be nosey and go and see what these people are doing throwing bricks and bottles at police and smashing Bank Windows. This could be fun to see' Instead of going home by a safe alternative route!!

Perhaps he thought "look at all these protesters I have to get past to get home, if I stick close to the police I should be safe".

Agreed NVF - sorry I've just repeated what you said, I was writing my post when you posted yours.

Swimbar - he doesn't look very nosey to me - he's got his head down and when the police first hit him, he doesn't even look behind, looks to me like he just wants to get away. And anyway, so what if he was being nosey - he doesn't deserve that!!

[swimbar]

The man died, why, we don't know, and we should leave it to those with responsibility to inform us in due course - nobody is cheering!!!

Clearly, however, it has given an opportunity for those anti-establishment members of the forum to vent their views.

[Hannah_111]

The man died, why, we don't know, and we should leave it to those with responsibility to inform us in due course - nobody is cheering!!!

Death or no death that man should not have been treated in that way.

[Spidey]

the copper will be jailed...but the man is dead nowWhere is this stated that this is the reason the man died?

The man died, why, we don't know, and we should leave it to those with responsibility to inform us in due course - nobody is cheering!!!

Clearly, however, it has given an opportunity for those anti-establishment members of the forum to vent their views.
My paper says of a heart attack.

[Breaststrokemum]

My paper says of a heart attack.

An unprovoked attack by a policeman is enough to give anyone a heart attack!

BM

[Breaststrokemum]

Was in a left wing paper.....

The Times and Telegraph have the same story.

BM

[mpfmark]

[QUOTE=Spidey;180069]Where is this stated that this is the reason the man died?


Having been to many criminal and civil court hearings over the last 20 years, mostly for defendants facing charges of varying degrees of assault and/or dishonesty...(some of whom have been Police Officers), the video evidence in this case will be, in my opinion, enough to convict the Police Man of something serious.

Where the Police Officers actions lawful, necessary and proportionate to the situation...Yes the bloke was being awkward and he was clearly teasing the Police with his very slow meandering walk, I do not believe for one minute he was trying to get home from work, it is not the gait of a man 'trying to get home'. We cannot hear what was being said or what he did before hand.

However being devils advocate...he had his back to the officer, he did not look armed or dangerous, I dare say he was being obstructive but that hardly requires a baton strike.

His previous medical condition will be taken into account but I doubt the bobby has a leg to stand on. He will no doubt be suspended already.

The term Red Mist spring to mind.

It is nothing like the Charles de Mendez case.

[Stevie_k]

I have only just seen it. It think its quite upsetting.

I had a massively strong urge to punch that copper for that. He obviously has violence issue's and does not deserve the responsibility of wearing a policemans badge.

I would suggest he is immediately sacked and charged for assault or even manslaughter.

Pathetic idiot!

[NotVeryFast]

I had a massively strong urge to punch that copper for that. He obviously has violence issue's
I think that is the most amusing post you've ever made, Stevie, but can't work out if you intended it to be so funny!

[Dave_G]

Do we still believe our illustrious leaders when they tell us, "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear"(?)

[zanshin]

An unprovoked attack by a policeman is enough to give anyone a heart attack!

BM

I was dragged out of a phone box by 5 armed police in 1969; four years later I suffered a heart attack.

I still blame them for it:zip:

[NotVeryFast]

Well, seems as though the unfortunate victim was one of those the Establishment ruling our Brave New Society, regard to be "disposable".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6058186.ece
That story links to another one that is quite enlightening:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6060244.ece

Sadly it's nothing new, I've seen video footage before of police attacking peaceful protesters for no reason at all.

[SplashNblub]

[Yes the bloke was being awkward and he was clearly teasing the Police with his very slow meandering walk, I do not believe for one minute he was trying to get home from work, it is not the gait of a man 'trying to get home'.
The poor chap, separated from the wife and living in a hostel, was a very long term heavy drinker. I did note his rather odd stance and slow walk with his feet wide apart. This is the typical gait of a very longterm heavy drinker, even if not drunk at the time, usually caused by primary axonal sensorimotor peripheral polyneuropathy. In english he is walking unsteadily John Wayne style because he can neither feel nor control his legs very well. Nevertheless he was being a productive member of society within his limits helping sell papers.

The policeman, who has now come forward, may well have thought he was deliberately being a nuisance, but no excuse for (as new TV footage shows) hitting him hard across the back of the legs with a baton then crouching to give him a violent push so that he fell. I suspect his constitution was very weak and he died of shock.

[Breaststrokemum]

My student son was at the protest, and I have to say that I'm delighted he was. His generation are constantly criticised for their lack of beliefs and activism compared to students of the past. (And yes, Pandi......I'm pleased that he's still idealistic enough to be left wing.) He tells me that the protest was badly handled by the police. He was in a group that was peaceful but ended up 'caged' by the police for 4 1/2 hours. The police walked over those sitting in frustration!!!! You couldn't meet a less aggressive young man than my son and he says the police were totally to blame in that they turned a peaceful protest violent.

Next week is the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough.....where police incompetence led to the deaths of 98 football fans.

BM

[broomhillsaved]

Were the Police Officers actions lawful, necessary and proportionate to the situation...Yes the bloke was being awkward and he was clearly teasing the Police with his very slow meandering walk, I do not believe for one minute he was trying to get home from work, it is not the gait of a man 'trying to get home'. We cannot hear what was being said or what he did before hand.

However being devils advocate...he had his back to the officer, he did not look armed or dangerous, I dare say he was being obstructive but that hardly requires a baton strike.



I don't agree at all that he was "clearly teasing the Police". He looks unwell in the video and possibly drunk, but also relatively oblivious to his surroundings. It's impossible to know if his heart attack was already imminent or not, but his general stumbling gait is not the walk or posture of a healthy man.

The attack on him is a vicious assault and completely unjustified. It is extremely lucky that this was captured on video because the police would have denied any involvement without this unmistakable evidence. The post mortem will almost certainly show bruising, haemorrhage or even fractures in the area where the baton blow landed - and pain and shock can help anyone towards an early death.

If the baton blow damaged an artery then that would have been sufficient to cause death.

[GettingFaster]

I personally don't think that the police action would have caused a fatal heart attack in a healthy person, but even completely discounting the fact that the man died, the violence of the policeman was disproportionate and should be dealt with very rigourously. However, it is likely that the man had some kind of underlying heart problem (I don't think hearts just pack up out of the blue, there's usually something wrong even if undiagnosed) so the policeman's behaviour may well have provoked the heart attack by causing physiological responses, increased heart rate, increased amounts of adrenaline in his system and so on.

What is the definition of manslaughter? Isn't it something like "doing something that causes another person to die, without intending to cause the death"? I'm sure someone legal will be able to be more specific, but if it can be shown that the additional stress put on the man by the police's treatment of him led to the heart attack, then couldn't the policeman justifiably be charged with manslaughter?

[NotVeryFast]

What is the definition of manslaughter? Isn't it something like "doing something that causes another person to die, without intending to cause the death"?
I think there must be an element of the person being reasonably expected to be able to anticipate that the death might result from their actions. For example, if Stevie K posted a rant about swimsuits, and Haddock read it, causing his blood pressure to go up to a dangerous level, in turn causing an artery to burst, killing him, I don't think Stevie K would be guilty of manslaughter.

even completely discounting the fact that the man died, the violence of the policeman was disproportionate and should be dealt with very rigourously
Yes, and I would also like to see all the other police officers who were present prosecuted as well. They are supposed to be there to protect the public, but failed to protect that man from a brutal assault by another police officer. Why did they not arrest the police officer on the spot after having witnessed him committing assault?

[Leprechaun]

I personally don't think that the police action would have caused a fatal heart attack in a healthy person, but even completely discounting the fact that the man died, the violence of the policeman was disproportionate and should be dealt with very rigourously. However, it is likely that the man had some kind of underlying heart problem (I don't think hearts just pack up out of the blue, there's usually something wrong even if undiagnosed) so the policeman's behaviour may well have provoked the heart attack by causing physiological responses, increased heart rate, increased amounts of adrenaline in his system and so on.

What is the definition of manslaughter? Isn't it something like "doing something that causes another person to die, without intending to cause the death"? I'm sure someone legal will be able to be more specific, but if it can be shown that the additional stress put on the man by the police's treatment of him led to the heart attack, then couldn't the policeman justifiably be charged with manslaughter?

I would have though that it was no different to other manslaughter verdicts in the news recently.

Setting aside this unfortunate incident, there is a real problem in the Met's Communications Dept. They seem serially incapable of getting the truth out and are so inept at spinning a story too. The "death was a heart attack" flies in the face of all instructions given to Coroners and whatever finishes you off usually ends in a heart attack be it cancer, violence or some other condition.

But when you then see the case of the Anti-Terror Head strolling down Whitehall with a folder marked Top Secret you have to wonder if there any brains in the organisation at the top. That it took so long for any action to be taken, given his "previous", is further proof that the organisation needs an overhaul.

[mpfmark]

I personally don't think that the police action would have caused a fatal heart attack in a healthy person, but even completely discounting the fact that the man died, the violence of the policeman was disproportionate and should be dealt with very rigourously. However, it is likely that the man had some kind of underlying heart problem (I don't think hearts just pack up out of the blue, there's usually something wrong even if undiagnosed) so the policeman's behaviour may well have provoked the heart attack by causing physiological responses, increased heart rate, increased amounts of adrenaline in his system and so on.

What is the definition of manslaughter? Isn't it something like "doing something that causes another person to die, without intending to cause the death"? I'm sure someone legal will be able to be more specific, but if it can be shown that the additional stress put on the man by the police's treatment of him led to the heart attack, then couldn't the policeman justifiably be charged with manslaughter?


MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

[Stevie_k]

I think there must be an element of the person being reasonably expected to be able to anticipate that the death might result from their actions. For example, if Stevie K posted a rant about swimsuits, and Haddock read it, causing his blood pressure to go up to a dangerous level, in turn causing an artery to burst, killing him, I don't think Stevie K would be guilty of manslaughter.


I do see what you are saying, however this was an assault, bit different to a difference of opinion.

He should definately be shamed, named, sacked and charged with assualt at the very least, with the higher end of the penalty. But your right manslaughter may be extreme.

People at work here have been doing there nuts about it, and i have too. I cant bear bullys who prey on the weak, mob handy and tooled up. A good sneeze would probably have sent this poor soul to the ground.

But bullying tears me apart to witness. I just wish people who want to fight would fight a strong man who can defend himself and not prey on women, children and weaker people. Not everyone in the world is violent, or powerfull by nature, that does not mean you can push them around.

[mpfmark]

When Police do their PST ..Personal Safety Training.. they are almost brainwashed into thinking with the terms 'Lawful, Proportionate and Necessary' regarding the use of force.

The Baton strike to the leg and the subsequent push or strike to the floor was in my opinion none of the above..he will face a criminal charge for sure.

[NotVeryFast]

He should definately be shamed, named, sacked and charged with assualt at the very least, with the higher end of the penalty. But your right manslaughter may be extreme.
I wasn't saying at all that I don't think he was guilty of manslaughter, just commenting on GF's question about the general definition, and giving an example of how it isn't the case that any act that leads to someone's death will necessarily be manslaughter. I suspect it is much more likely to be deemed manslaughter if the act was a criminal one, i.e. if he is deemed guilty of assault.

But remember that there were a large number of reported instances of the police assaulting people for no reason that day, so it is a little unfair to single out that police officer just because he had the misfortune to do it to someone who died. Prosecute every police officer who assaulted someone that day, and also any police officer who witnessed an assault and did nothing about it.

[Stevie_k]

But remember that there were a large number of reported instances of the police assaulting people for no reason that day, so it is a little unfair to single out that police officer just because he had the misfortune to do it to someone who died. Prosecute every police officer who assaulted someone that day, and also any police officer who witnessed an assault and did nothing about it.

Tough luck! live by the sword, die by the sword.

Yes he was the unlucky one, but not as unlucky as the pool chap who got a slap on the back of the leg with a bat.

The others officers were 'lucky' not to get caught, he got exactly what he deserved.

It the identity of this person known, or are the police saying they cant identify him to protect him?

[EssBee]

It the identity of this person known, or are the police saying they cant identify him to protect him?

I think I read in the newspaper that the officer concerned has come forward.

EssBee
:wave:

[Stevie_k]

I think I read in the newspaper that the officer concerned has come forward.

EssBee
:wave:

I just read that he was obstructing a police van an hour and a half before the incident and had a verbal with them then.

It does seem that he was making a nuisence of himself but still, you cant just attack someone who wouldnt be able to defend himself anyway.

Its a thankless task being a copper. He may well have been dealing with all sorts that day and his fuse went on the wrong chap.

He should have been moved physically, and threatened with arrest not assualted!

[mpfmark]

He should have been moved physically, and threatened with arrest not assualted!

Exactly that he should have just been locked up and escorted away...in this day and age how can the activities of all involved on both sides expect to go unnoticed and /or unchallenged...everyone knew there was CCTV and media swarming all over it...plain stupid to behave like that if you ask me...

oh yeh nobody did ask me...think I will leave this thread alone now:zip:

[Hannah_111]

My humble opinion...

There are different types of manslaugher, in this case I suspect it would most likely be "constructive manslaughter" which has 3 elements: 1) The defendant must have done an unlawful act 2) The unlawful act must have been dangerous and 3) The unlawful and dangerous act must have caused the death of the victim.

</O:p
For a charge of manslaughter, I dont think it matters whether an ordinary person would have suffered a heart attack after such an incident or not. In criminal law there is a principle that is known as the “thin skill rule” which basically states that you must take the victim as you find them (i.e if you hit someone on the head and they have a thin skull which means they die, when an ordinary person wouldn't, then tough - you still caused their death) As an example, in one case, a husband and wife were having an argument, he chased her out the house, and she collapsed and died – medical evidence suggested that the wife had an abnormal medical condition which meant that if she suffered fright or extreme physical exertion she might die. It was held that the husband caused her death and the fact that her medical condition contributed was not relevant. (Also, although in this case the husband may have been aware of the medical condition, in other cases it has been confirmed that it does not matter whether the perpetrator is aware of the medical condition or not). Therefore I suspect that so long as there is some element of causation, and it can be proved that the heart attack would not have happened but for the actions of the police man, then a charge of manslaughter looks likely. Proving it might be hard but he did already have a weak heart and for example, medics are usually very careful about giving adrenaline to people with heart problems as they just don't have the capacity to match increased demands of a 'stressed' heart. So, it could be said that the stress of the assault brought on the heart attack..

[Pandi]

Poo happens.Cannot understand Why peeps are getting so upset over this.Assualt/manslaughter.Gets better evey time.
Good old copper gave a 21st century"clip round the ear" to a nuiscance.Yep he died.Get over it.
No doubt we will have the"bleeding hearts" wringing on about this and that.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Good old copper gave a 21st century"clip round the ear" to a nuiscance.Yep he died.Get over it.
.

It was hardly a "clip round the ear" if the guy died as a result.

Who has to "get over it"? His widow? His son?

Are you saying then that we should just let it go? Allow the power-happy police act as they want to and just let them get away with it?
Yes, it must be really tempting to wade in when there is a riot /demonstration and start wielding a stick left, right and centre - after all the police are human too; I bet it is a frightening situation to be in, and attack is the best defence. But, surely they must be trained to react appropriately, and to attempt to diffuse the situation. Not cause more aggro.

[Breaststrokemum]

Thank you for your post, Speedy! I had hoped that Pandi's post was a wind up, but sadly, it almost certainly wasn't. As I said in an earlier post, my son was there, and the police were aggravating an already difficult situation.

BM

[Pandi]

It was hardly a "clip round the ear" if the guy died as a result.

Who has to "get over it"? His widow? His son?

Are you saying then that we should just let it go? Allow the power-happy police act as they want to and just let them get away with it?
Yes, it must be really tempting to wade in when there is a riot /demonstration and start wielding a stick left, right and centre - after all the police are human too; I bet it is a frightening situation to be in, and attack is the best defence. But, surely they must be trained to react appropriately, and to attempt to diffuse the situation. Not cause more aggro.

Bit rich.Speedy.Spanish "plod" not noted for the softly softly approach.

Thank you for your post, Speedy! I had hoped that Pandi's post was a wind up, but sadly, it almost certainly wasn't. As I said in an earlier post, my son was there, and the police were aggravating an already difficult situation.

BM
Blame the Coppers.Easy target."already an difficult situation".According to whom were the police "aggravating" the situation?

[Breaststrokemum]

Bit rich.Speedy.Spanish "plod" not noted for the softly softly approach.


Blame the Coppers.Easy target."already an difficult situation".According to whom were the police "aggravating" the situation?

OK.....my wording was incorrect. In my son's opinion, remember that he was there. Neither you nor I were, the police actually CAUSED the problem. I have no more to say on the matter.

BM

[GettingFaster]

Hannah, thanks for your clear and unemotional response.

[Pandi]

the police actually CAUSED the problem. I have no more to say on the matter.
BM
So you blame "plod" for having caused problem?:shocking:

[Pandi]

Hannah, thanks for your clear and unemotional response.
Nice post GF.
Sit on the fence.Ignore the rest.

[GettingFaster]

Nice post GF.
Sit on the fence.Ignore the rest.

Not ignoring, Pandi, watching. I have already posted and asked a specific question. I also stated my view that the actions of the policeman as shown on the film clip was OTT. Show me where the fence is...

I don't know all the ins and outs of the case. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else on the forum. So I don't see the point in voicing a strong opinion on this without the full facts. Doing so sounds too much like talk radio to me.

[Linny]

You will find me listed as a serving officer in the met from 1986 until 1995.

During that time, without provocation I was spat at, spat on, verbally abused, had bottles thrown at me, had home made petrol bombs thrown at me, scratched, thumped, threatened, imprisoned, lied about, lied to, physically assaulted, indecently assaulted and had my car rammed. In addition I was investigated for assaults that didn't happen, an indecent assault that didn't happen, lies that I didn't tell and things that I should have done but didn't know. I went to court and told the truth as an individual who had chosen to join the police service because I believed in right and wrong and wanted to do something useful only to have my honest words treated with contempt by lawyers serving the dregs of society and being paid for out of the proceeds of crime or from the taxpayers purse including my own contributions.

Sometimes, the truth belies fiction and a short sequence of video footage does not always tell the whole tale. The man wielding the baton is not always the villain. Thus we should assume innocence until guilt is proven.

(caveat - I have no time for police officers that bring down the profession and I am so delighted that they are investigated independently. I look forward to the time when I can say the same about the swimming coaching profession).

[Spidey]

I am suprised that there is not more footage. All pictures of the violent protesters showed them all armed with cameras.

[SplashNblub]

I am suprised that there is not more footage. All pictures of the violent protesters showed them all armed with cameras.
Good point. Well kind of - it's difficult to be a violent protestor while using a camera at the same time but point made.:) By a curious coincidence :) Westmister Council's entire network of wireless cctv cameras had to be switched off just before the G20 summit because of a Department for Transport ruling re the number of pixels displayed. Quite extraordinary. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/30/cctv-london-government-transport-g20

More interestingly ''A further 160 "permanent" CCTV cameras run by the authority are unaffected.'' so I wonder what they will show in due course. I suppose they may not have been working/pointing in the right direction etc as with Menezes. i.e.

''The first police on the scene claimed that the cameras on the platform were not working and would not say if they recovered any film from inside the tube carriage. Tube staff say the CCTV equipment was operating that morning.''

Anyone want to bet whether any tape of the incident or what led up to it will be found?

As Linny (and all credit to her for her years spent looking after the rest of us) says a policepersons lot is not always a happy one and I understand that the particular policeman concerned had been under recent violent attack. Nevertheless the attack is inexcusable. As for Pandi I wonder how he would feel if Ian Tomlinson was an alcoholic ex-soldier in effect slotted by a copper?

Meanwhile look at the poor chap below -clearly a victim of police brutality? No. Tore his own t shirt and tied it round his neck as an identifier to other anarchists - that is not blood it is fake! An agent provocateur. Note he is running about looking cheery and no obvious source of the 'blood'. This is not my opinion but fact from someone who was there.

[Spidey]

I recall the chap throwing the lap top at the RBS window - surrounded by cameras - set up for the press perchance?

[Pandi]

As for Pandi I wonder how he would feel if Ian Tomlinson was an alcoholic ex-soldier in effect slotted by a copper?


Cheap shot SplashN.You know full well the guy wasnt "Slotted".
Just used as media fodder,by our "white middle class" Guardianista's.

[Pandi]

Nice one Wildie.
Just about covers it.:thumb:

[SplashNblub]

Cheap shot SplashN.You know full well the guy wasnt "Slotted".
Just used as media fodder,by our "white middle class" Guardianista's.
Apologies - a cheap shot indeed but just to give you food for thought and another perspective on it. The bottom line is that police spend most of their time dealing with drunks and should have spotted him a mile off and if he was getting in their way - perhaps deliberately earlier - then why not just arrest him? The obvious thing to do.

[NotVeryFast]

They were there to suppress and control violence, Only your politics makes you interpret it as suppressing dissent.
Whether it is their primary aim or not, they do indeed suppress legitimate peaceful demonstration. They store details of people who attend these things in a database, and goodness knows what the consequences of that might be for future job applications. Anti-terrorist legislation has been used to detain people before they even arrive at the location of their planned peaceful demonstration/protest, and they are only released after the window of opportunity for the event has finished. Then we have the new law (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5132071/G20-death-Fresh-attempt-to-overturn-ban-on-photographing-police.html) that means photographing a police officer can land you with 10 years in prison, which is likely to be abused to cover up incidents such as the recent G20 one. I certainly would never attend a protest/demonstration, but not because I wouldn't like to protest against some of the things our government does. I'm sure I'm not the only one, so legitimate dissent has undoubtedly been suppressed to some extent.

Perhaps we can be reassured that you, like us, deplore the demonstrators' violence that produced the police intervention and reaction?
Though you weren't addressing this at me, I feel the need to respond. First of all, I would dispute the implied statement of cause and effect there. It would be nice to hear more from whoever was in charge of the police operation about why they use the tactics they do (charging at the crowds to force them into a smaller and smaller area, not letting anyone out for hours etc) and whether those tactics would be used regardless of whether or not there was any violence.

When there is violence used by the demonstrators, clearly this is unacceptable, but the police have powers granted to them to deal with such matters. When violence is used by the police, the public have little chance in any such confrontation as the police are armed and clothed in protective gear, and a member of the public who tries to resist an unprovoked assault is likely to be beaten up by numerous officers, arrested, and ultimately convicted of assaulting a police officer, even if they did nothing at all to merit the initial assault. With the powers granted to the police come extra responsibility. Their behaviour needs to be beyond reproach, or people will resent the perceived abuse of power, which will itself generate negative sentiment and contribute to violence in the future. At least Obama seems to have some understanding of this feedback loop with the changes he is making to how the CIA deal with those suspected of terrorist involvement.

By the way, Pandi, I'm confused, I thought from this post (http://www.swimclub.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=177826&postcount=42) you were in favour of peaceful protest? Would you not mind if the police came along and beat up those people protesting against a swimming pool closure?

[Dave_G]

Wildy please answer the question, do you deplore the violence from the demonstrators thats been part of every G20 (or 7 etc). Many countries beyond uk have suffered it. the summit attracts all manner of oddball minority groups set on violence.

Because of the extreme behaviour of a minority that hijacked legitimate protests, the police have to there ready to handle violence.

So go on then deplore the violence of the demonstrators please. I didnt ask you to change or even justify your legitimately held political view. NVF found it easy enough to do.

There is a world of difference between 'being there ready to handle violence' and attacking an innocent man (Mr Tomlinson). For the record, let me just say that I totally condemn any acts of violence, be it from the demonstrators OR the police, or from anyone else. There is NO justification for such behaviour.

[Linny]

Whether it is their primary aim or not, they do indeed suppress legitimate peaceful demonstration. They store details of people who attend these things in a database, and goodness knows what the consequences of that might be for future job applications. Anti-terrorist legislation has been used to detain people before they even arrive at the location of their planned peaceful demonstration/protest, and they are only released after the window of opportunity for the event has finished. Then we have the new law (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5132071/G20-death-Fresh-attempt-to-overturn-ban-on-photographing-police.html) that means photographing a police officer can land you with 10 years in prison, which is likely to be abused to cover up incidents such as the recent G20 one. I certainly would never attend a protest/demonstration, but not because I wouldn't like to protest against some of the things our government does. I'm sure I'm not the only one, so legitimate dissent has undoubtedly been suppressed to some extent.Who do you think police officers are? Bloody aliens acting on the orders of weirdos to supress innocent civilians going about their day to day business just for fun or for no reason at all? Where are they recruited? Weirdo school? Thug shops? No they are ordinary law abiding people and when you go to police training college you don't learn how to be a thug and beat people up for nothing.

If you had ever actually been on a "peaceful" protest or attempted to police one you would perhaps understand a little better that it is not the police that orchestrate the trouble, nor is it the innocent protesters; it is groups of people intent on causing unrest and undermining the structure of society because anarchy suits them better than complying with the law and they will use any opportunity to impose their will on you and everybody else in the country. People like you should be supporting our law enforcers in the fight against these criminals instead of believing and spreading their lies.

You will find the exactly the same people protesting against fox-hunting, G20, racism, gay oppression, immigration control, nuclear weapons, the Olympics, in fact absolutely anything where they can wreak havoc and undermine the rule of law.

THAT is why photographs are taken of protesters, THAT is why you can find yourself in bad company at a protest and THAT is why some police officers can find themselves vulnerable to either appearing to do things wrong or actually doing things wrong - because these anarchists are very good at what they do and especially making others look like the guilty party. Conveniently enough, they DO carry cameras and conveniently enough they only ever manage to capture one side of the story whilst the police cameramen can't just wipe the bits that suit them.

Your account is pure paranoia, delusion and propaganda. Same kind of crap that you can read in the Liverpool Echo.

[Pandi]

Apologies - a cheap shot indeed but just to give you food for thought and another perspective on it. The bottom line is that police spend most of their time dealing with drunks and should have spotted him a mile off and if he was getting in their way - perhaps deliberately earlier - then why not just arrest him? The obvious thing to do.

Totally agree.It's the fact that "perhaps earlier" he was being a pest.Wildie very kindly posted a link which shows him standing in front of "plod" van.If they would have arrested him then.Then this thread possibly would not be drawing so much attention.Food for thought.If he was arrested in the first place.the photo's showing the arrest would be used as ammo.For those wishing to undermine Law & Order in this country.


By the way, Pandi, I'm confused, I thought from this post (http://www.swimclub.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=177826&postcount=42) you were in favour of peaceful protest? Would you not mind if the police came along and beat up those people protesting against a swimming pool closure?

All in favour of Protests NVF.You cannot compare (even by spreadsheet) these two events.World leaders were in town along with certain people hell bent on making a statement.

Who do you think police officers are? Bloody aliens acting on the orders of weirdos to supress innocent civilians going about their day to day business just for fun or for no reason at all? Where are they recruited? Weirdo school? Thug shops? No they are ordinary law abiding people and when you go to police training college you don't learn how to be a thug and beat people up for nothing.

If you had ever actually been on a "peaceful" protest or attempted to police one you would perhaps understand a little better that it is not the police that orchestrate the trouble, nor is it the innocent protesters; it is groups of people intent on causing unrest and undermining the structure of society because anarchy suits them better than complying with the law and they will use any opportunity to impose their will on you and everybody else in the country. People like you should be supporting our law enforcers in the fight against these criminals instead of believing and spreading their lies.

You will find the exactly the same people protesting against fox-hunting, G20, racism, gay oppression, immigration control, nuclear weapons, the Olympics, in fact absolutely anything where they can wreak havoc and undermine the rule of law.

THAT is why photographs are taken of protesters, THAT is why you can find yourself in bad company at a protest and THAT is why some police officers can find themselves vulnerable to either appearing to do things wrong or actually doing things wrong - because these anarchists are very good at what they do and especially making others look like the guilty party. Conveniently enough, they DO carry cameras and conveniently enough they only ever manage to capture one side of the story whilst the police cameramen can't just wipe the bits that suit them.

Your account is pure paranoia, delusion and propaganda. Same kind of crap that you can read in the Liverpool Echo.

Nice post Linny.Apart from the echo jibe.

I'm not a big fan of "plod":beer: Anyone.

[swimbar]

I deplore violence on both sides. However don't seek to justify the violence on the part of the police that is the subject of this thread. This debate is about police violence, not any alleged violence on the part of the protesters. You are perfectly free to start another thread on that topic should you wish.

This thread has been hijacked into anti-police/state propaganda. Any 'debate' ceased long ago.

[swimbar]

A very appropriate choice of words.

Wildswimmer Pete

Yes but mine had a very important '/' in the statement.

Presumably the following is just unfortunate, in your eyes, in your police state

Police officer seriously injured

An armed policeman has suffered life-threatening injuries as he tried to tackle a suspected armed robber.

The officer, aged in his 30s, was trying to stop the suspect in Newham, east London, when he suffered head injuries.

The Pc, with the Met's firearms unit, is said to be in a critical condition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7994971.stm

[Pandi]

Only last week I was perusing the BNP website. I'm sure they'd be highly chuffed to be described as "lefty".
Wildswimmer Pete
Nice one Wildie.Seeing as you have spent time perusing.What is your view on the BNP's views on protecting Fish stocks?

[mpfmark]

Pete
why are you getting so upset at others posts ie Leppys
you are both entitled to speak freely but it has again like many threads diverted off the topic, no one is saying it was a good thing what happened and no one was there who actually posted, hearsay is not worth a thing.

Tomlinson is dead. He was treated wrongly and the Copper will pay the price despite what the likes of some will say, he is sure to be made an example of, that however does not mean that the Police are all violent left wing, right wing or other wise.

some have quoted the miners strike...they have no idea the sh*t that was taken by the police back then, like then the g20 it had plenty of people who attended with no other reason than to cause trouble, no different to football, the NI troubles or any other stage where they get a chance to advertise there testosterone..

lets just wait and see what happens

chill out

dont eat too many eggs tomorrow

m

[NotVeryFast]

Their crime? Not wasting accidentally-caught out-of-quota fish by throwing it back dead into the sea.
You can see why they have to make people do that, though. If they didn't, then people would soon be "accidentally" catching a lot of fish.

Re some of the other stuff in this thread, I don't want to get embroiled too deep in discussion, but for what it's worth, someone not wanting to live in a police state doesn't make them left wing, and someone not wanting to see police beating people up for no apparent reason does not make them a supporter of armed robbery.

[Pandi]

It's a difficult one to answer as I don't want to appear racist. However my gut feeling is that fish stocks in British waters should only be fished by British fleets. The Europeans have plenty of waters. I'm seriously saddened by the way our traditional fishing industry has been all but destroyed by EU legislation.

I'm appalled by the way a Devon fishing family is being subjected to a vindictive legal campaign supported by the Courts, obviously intended to drive them out of business and seize their assets. Their crime? Not wasting accidentally-caught out-of-quota fish by throwing it back dead into the sea.

It might be an idea to start a new thread rather than take this one off topic.
Wildswimmer Pete
Why start a new thread.?Appear Racist.?Just for a point of view.
Ref.the miners strike.Used to stop off at a pub in Nottingham on the way to mablethorpe.Tv.full of of Wives & kids struggling too survive,"we have no food blah blah."PUB full off striker's getting Pissed,while watching and cheering the Slappers left at home.O-by the way.The Striker's were working in Shifts.Bus em in then bus em out.Doubt the bar bill came out of Scargills pocket.

[Linny]

Tomlinson is dead. He was treated wrongly and the Copper will pay the price despite what the likes of some will say, he is sure to be made an example ofWhich may well be a travesty.

Chances are, in this police officer, you have a law abiding citizen, performing his job in the honest belief that he is doing what he is paid to do. Pushing Ian Tomlinson over in isolation looks outrageous; maybe it was completely wrong; that is not for me or for anyone else on here to judge because we don't know anything else about what happened around the footage that we have seen. Let's not forget that he died of a heart attack. He didn't die because he was beaten or kicked or shot or stabbed. He died because his heart stopped. Noone, but noone should be condemning this police officer for anything other than pushing a man who was clearly in breach of fairly simple instructions, in circumstances which he alone will have to justify.

Back to Leppy's question, one of the first things that you do learn when you go to Police Training College are the word of Sir Richard Mayne in that "The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained."

The above is learned by rote (or it was); it is ingrained because it is important. It has to be recited and it must be understood. This is the type of doctrine police recruits are brainwashed in to affect their behaviour.

So, therein lies the role of the police service; all police officers know this and each and every one of them carries it out to a greater or lesser degree according to how they are directed and their own individual perception of what that means.

If you have any doubts about who you would rather work with and trust, consider what kind of statement of purpose your average anarchist would have.

[NotVeryFast]

So, therein lies the role of the police service; all police officers know this and each and every one of them carries it out to a greater or lesser degree according to how they are directed and their own individual perception of what that means.
So were the police officers in these accounts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-protest-witnesses-police-actions) abiding by it? The only alternative is to believe that those people are lying, but what they are saying seems consistent with what can be seen on the many video clips on youtube.

I'm not saying that all police officers behave improperly. I think that would be as ludicrous a point of view as it would be to believe that no police officers ever behave improperly. Perhaps in some cases the police are simply mistaken as to what they should be doing, but to describe me as paranoid when my "paranoia" is shared by the home office seems extreme. The Home Office is to put out guidance to police to ensure that the law is implemented properly and that people are not stopped from taking photographs in public places, a Minister told MPs. (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43512&c=1)

[Breaststrokemum]

Why start a new thread.?Appear Racist.?Just for a point of view.
Ref.the miners strike.Used to stop off at a pub in Nottingham on the way to mablethorpe.Tv.full of of Wives & kids struggling too survive,"we have no food blah blah."PUB full off striker's getting Pissed,while watching and cheering the Slappers left at home.O-by the way.The Striker's were working in Shifts.Bus em in then bus em out.Doubt the bar bill came out of Scargills pocket.

I hardly think the wives were deserving of the description....'slapper'.....

BM

[Linny]

Whether it is their primary aim or not, they do indeed suppress legitimate peaceful demonstration. They store details of people who attend these things in a database, and goodness knows what the consequences of that might be for future job applications. This was a generalisation and unnecessarily paranoid in my view. Some of the rest of the post may have been tempered but your general tone was about as complementary to the police service and police officers in general as Juicy Lucy is about swimming coaches and I take exception to that because you write as though you know when clearly you don't.

Likewise, I have never suggested that there are not police officers out there that do things that are wrong; I'm simply suggesting, nay telling you that thuggery is not endemic in the police service and that going about your regular business behaving in a lawful manner does not put you in the frame for the attention of the police.

If the policeman that pushed Ian Tomlinson is found to have behaved in an inappropriate way in the circumstance then he deserves to be punished and he will be no doubt but that doesn't mean he killed the man and it certainly doesn't mean that all coppers are bastards!

[NotVeryFast]

This was a generalisation and unnecessarily paranoid in my view.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/06/police-surveillance-protesters-journalists-climate-kingsnorth

The database exists, it is not paranoia. "Superintendent David Hartshorn, from the Met's public order branch, conceded law-abiding campaigners were being added to the database."

[Linny]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/06/police-surveillance-protesters-journalists-climate-kingsnorth

The database exists, it is not paranoia. "Superintendent David Hartshorn, from the Met's public order branch, conceded law-abiding campaigners were being added to the database."You miss my point entirely. Because I am not paranoid about the manner in which the police service operates I am delighted that this type of recording takes place and would support the creation and maintainance of such a database.

I see the following actions
Activists "seen on a regular basis" as well as those deemed on the "periphery" of demonstrations are included on the police databases, regardless of whether they have been convicted or arrested.
Names, political associations and photographs of protesters from across the political spectrum – from campaigners against the third runway at Heathrow to anti-war activists – are catalogued.
Police forces are exchanging information about pro­testers stored on their intelligence systems, enabling officers from different forces to search which political events an individual has attended.as being essential and sensible measures to protect the public and entirely within the lawful duty of the police service. I'll go so far as to say that a failure to perform these actions would be a neglect of duty in my eyes because I expect the police to protect me from people who are only out to make trouble.

I trust policemen. I trust them with information about me because I really don't do anything that will raise any interest in a law enforcement officer and the police holding information on people really shouldn't worry anyone at all unless they are trying to break the law and get away with it. I'd rather they didn't get away with it.

[NotVeryFast]

I see the following actions ... as being essential and sensible measures to protect the public and entirely within the lawful duty of the police service. I'll go so far as to say that a failure to perform these actions would be a neglect of duty in my eyes because I expect the police to protect me from people who are only out to make trouble.
Okay, but they must be doing more than that with it or its existence would be pointless. It has to at some stage translate into action against an individual, as there would otherwise be no point accumulating information about them. The question is what action do they take against individuals as a result of them being in the database, for example if they carry out a background check for a job application, could being on the database prevent a person from getting a job? We simply have no way of knowing how it is being used, but it must be being used for some sort of action against the individuals on it, or it wouldn't exist.

[Pandi]

Sorry.This made me chuckle.My headline for this.NAZI Polar bears attack on peacefull protester.Caught on camera.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/apr/12/animals-germany?picture=345847068

Wild swimming taken toooo the max.:aarrgghh:

[Pandi]

Pete.The pre-booked M.O.T rule came into force later than your 20yrs ago claim.
No MOT-No Tax-Even if you were insured it would be worthless.
No points on your liceance? If you have one?

[Juicy Lucy]

I trust policemen.

I certainly don’t.

Many years ago I was driving along the motorway following a masters meet at Bracknell. I saw a lone woman standing by her car. It had broken down. I had my mobile phone with me and stopped to ask if she wanted to use it to call the RAC or AA for assistance. It was at a time when not many people had mobiles, unlike today.

When I stopped on the hard shoulder, a police car drew up behind me. One officer asked me to sit in the back of the police car and then he aggressively asked why I had stopped. I explained that as I had my phone, and that the woman was alone, I thought I’d give her the chance to call for help.

I was told that I could only stop if the car had broken down and that it was illegal to park on the hard shoulder. The officer (Thames Valley police) booked me there and then, and I later received a fine.

Although this happened many years ago, and I accept that not all police officers would have acted in the same manner, nevertheless it has clouded my view of the police and because of this single incident I don’t trust them.

My view now is that I will never help the police if given the chance, and by the same token I’ll never ask for their help.

JL

[chris_lamb]

Noone, but noone should be condemning this police officer for anything other than pushing a man who was clearly in breach of fairly simple instructions, in circumstances which he alone will have to justify.

That holds if, and only if, there was no link between the pushing and subsequent events. It may be that the police officer's actions were unrelated to the man's death or it may be they were linked. Hopefully the investigation should tell us.

Unfortunately there will be some who aren't happy unless the investigation proves the police officer intentionally committed murder...

[Linny]

I don't. Twenty years ago I was stopped while riding my bike to the local bike dealer's - I had no tax or MOT but was of course perfectly legal as I had a booked MOT test. Somehow this developed into my being attributed with someone else's criminal record for dealing in marijuana. As I don't (and never have had) any form of criminal record (including driving offences) I was somewhat displeased. I only found out completely by accident, otherwise I would have unknowingly carried that stigma to today.

Care to comment, Linny?

Wildswimmer PeteIf you do not understand why it is perfectly correct for a policeman to stop you for driving with no tax or MOT and to question you then you are an idiot. A bike being ridden when it has no MOT or tax should arouse suspicion and lead to a policeman performing a PNC check on you and the bike. The fact that you say you have a test booked and may therefore be acting lawfully is completely irrelevant, he absolutely should stop you. I really don't understand your problem Pete.

As for your suggestion that you had somehow in your mind been linked to someone else who dealt in marijuana, I'm really sorry but how does this lead you to a distrust of policemen? You know sometimes people have the same name, sometimes even completely the same details. These come up on the PNC. There's no conspiracy. Occasionally it takes a few questions or maybe even a whole pile to establish the truth. You think policemen should accept the word of everyone they meet on the street without question? The streets would be full of criminals; they lie to get off you know.

If all you have on the police in your entire existence is a stop and question whilst riding a bike with no tax or MOT and you think that is unfair then you really need to find something else to be upset about.

You know what else, if you didn't have such an awful anti-establishment attitude problem you would probably be a much happier man. You need to realise that you simply aren't important. Noone is coming to get you while you sleep. Noone is trying to frame you or stitch you up.

[Pandi]

MAG not been wasted on you then Wildie.:)

[Yog-Sothoth]

Fred Deleter's been at work then.... (as we used to say on another forum ;) )

[GettingFaster]

Or could it perhaps have been the person who posted who deleted their own posts? Good to see paranoia and conspiracy theorists are alive and well! :D

[NotVeryFast]

Good to see paranoia and conspiracy theorists are alive and well! :D
Yes, though on that topic, this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7998182.stm) yesterday made me think of this thread. The post I would have replied to has been deleted, but was about people being paranoid if they believe in great conspiracies. I don't think anyone on this thread has actually said they believe in great conspiracies, what I personally believe is much milder than that, which is that there are people in power, both in the public and private sector, whose actions should not be taken at face value and we might have to look a bit deeper to see their real motivations. Anyway, the above story seemed like a perfect example - all this time I had been assuming it was incompetence on the part of people who manage traffic lights when you get stopped by every single set of traffic lights along a road, but no, it seems it was an explicit policy to try to make us use more petrol, thus increasing the government's revenue from fuel duty!

Also, this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7999277.stm) is directly relevant to the first post in the thread, though I'm sure everyone has already read about it.

[GettingFaster]

NVF, you over-interpreted my post. I was only thinking about the particular conspiracy theory that "someone" has deleted posts in this thread, nothing deeper than that.

[FiFi LaMarché]

all this time I had been assuming it was incompetence on the part of people who manage traffic lights when you get stopped by every single set of traffic lights along a road, but no, it seems it was an explicit policy to try to make us use more petrol, thus increasing the government's revenue from fuel duty!


I used to train with a guy who was one of the people who manage the traffic lights, and he would always set himself a "green wave" for his drive home. I did always wonder about the effects on the other drivers trying to cross his route...

I would never have expected that there was an official policy to make us use more petrol!! Maybe I need to start paying more attention to these conspiracy theories.

[Yog-Sothoth]

NVF, you over-interpreted my post. I was only thinking about the particular conspiracy theory that "someone" has deleted posts in this thread, nothing deeper than that.

Unless you have exceptionally heavy handed Mods, it's usually the OP that zaps their own posts, typically when they're losing an argument or have said something that, on reflection, they wish they hadn't.

Hence, "Fred Deleter" :D

[GettingFaster]

YS, there ARE no mods other than The Boss.

[Yog-Sothoth]

YS, there ARE no mods other than The Boss.

Then it was most likely the OP. Perhaps some harsh words were "unspoken"

:zip:

[chris_lamb]

So sorry linny but that is just completely out of line for a police officer and neither being pushed to the ground or hit with a baton can ever be acceptable to my mind.

I think it's a bit too black and white to say the can't ever be acceptable. There are clearly situations where the police are responding to high levels of violence and need to respond accordingly to be effective.

And the quote a Met spokesman:

"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."

[chris_lamb]

Are you saying that striking a woman across the face and then striking her with a baton is acceptable--if thats the case then i suggest we all get tooled up and start fighting back.

I'm saying it could be acceptable depending on what she is doing. A short video clip can't give you all the information so we don't know exactly what happened.

It is now up to the police officer involved to justify their use of force.

[Linny]

I was listenning to the local news todat where there was a report that another officer from the same unit had been filmed hitting a woman across the face and strikng her with his baton.

So sorry linny but that is just completely out of line for a police officer and neither being pushed to the ground or hit with a baton can ever be acceptable to my mind.

Before i get tarred with either the "just an anti-establishment leftie" or "bleeding heart liberal" just to say that my senior nurse job is very establishment nd my usual contact with "fellow" professionals ie the police very positive.I don't know what the role of the police was there, nor anything about it but it's clear that some of the protesters were only there to goad and provoke them. They are though in a no win situation though; get the dogs in or the mounted police and they are accused of overkill and if they try and perform the role with just a few officers they are vulnerable enough to be threatened and I thought that group of officers looked quite threatened; they certainly looked and behaved as though they felt that way.

Maybe you think men should be more honourable? How would you feel if it had been a WPC that had taken that same action?

Whatever you might think, it certainly isn't appropriate in my view for policemen to simply stand and be verbally abused and jostled by protesters simply for existing so whilst I pretty much agree with all your comments stevebncanoe, I have to question what you think you might have done in the circumstance and what the consequences of that action or inaction would be.

Aggressive, attention-seeking, in-your-face women are incredibly difficult to deal with, especially for men, and it wasn't like she could have been shepherded quietly away to calm down because of the environment and the number of people there and it would have probably taken a good two or three officers to restrain her without hurting her which I've no doubt would also have been seen as abuse and whilst she screamed about how much they were hurting her as she struggled to get away would probably have started a riot and no doubt that would be the fault of the police service too. If peaceful protests were actually peaceful none of this would happen. They aren't though, that's just a name.

Like Chris says, it is up to that copper to now attempt to justify the use of that level of force in the circumstances he was in. Without the full scenario that isn't possible.

[Haddock]

If you saw the whole clip on Youtube after the women was struck and robocop moved away another officer came to the front of the crowd and seemed to have a normal conversation.
He was either very brave or there was no threat whatsoever.

[Linny]

Linny thanks--comments taken very seriously. Yes i guess that i am somewhat hindered by having been brought up with "never hit a woman"--ever. And from where i stand as a nurse we would always opt for "soft" tactics to handle problems like that--in fact nowadays we reguarly have to use a security service to prevent assults on staff.I'm sure the vast, vast majority of police officers would agree with you about using soft tactics but what about when you are dealing with large numbers and what about when you are the security service? Call the army? Have you seen Rules of Engagement?As a side issue in this thread what do you make of the tactic of "kettling" protesters and bystanders.?Let's go back to my post about the purpose of the police service. Remember it? The words of Richard MayneThe primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained.
That's what the police are there for. That is really all they are trying to do. Resorting to strong arm tactics is only in response to the threat that they perceive or are told to perceive (therein no doubt lies the real story).

How exactly would you prevent crime when you are faced with anarchists that are attempting to orchestrate chaos and disorder on the streets of our capital and they are hiding amongst and using ordinary people in an effort to undermine the very fabric of our society? They don't write "I'm an Anarchist" on their heads. So what do you do? Let them get on with it? Use a water cannon? Read the old Riot Act? Containment (that is what it is, not kettling) seems reasonable to me when you consider the alternatives.

[NotVeryFast]

It's interesting there is to be a second independent review of the policing operation, carried out by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC):
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8000246.stm

Jacqui Smith says "We recently reformed HMIC to increase their capacity to provide this type of advice", which is encouraging, perhaps this review would not have been able to take place previously.

It is also encouraging that Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson says "I have already expressed my concern that the video footage of some police actions are clearly disturbing and should be thoroughly investigated".

I'm also pleased to hear Sir Paul say "As well as the post-event investigation into those responsible for violence and disorder, I have also ensured that footage in police possession is reviewed to identify any other matters of individual police conduct that may warrant investigation", as I think it is quite right that all instances of improper conduct need to be looked at, not just those where a death occurred.

[NotVeryFast]

The plot thickens, it seems it may not have been a heart attack after all.

"a fresh examination has found he died of abdominal bleeding, not a heart attack, as originally thought"

"Dr Cary's opinion is that the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage. The cause of the haemorrhage remains to be ascertained."

"Following the initial results of the second post mortem, a Metropolitan police officer has been interviewed under caution for the offence of manslaughter as part of an ongoing inquiry into the death of Ian Tomlinson."

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm

[SplashNblub]

Aggressive, attention-seeking, in-your-face women are incredibly difficult to deal with, especially for men, and it wasn't like she could have been shepherded quietly away to calm down because of the environment and the number of people there and it would have probably taken a good two or three officers to restrain her without hurting her which I've no doubt would also have been seen as abuse and whilst she screamed about how much they were hurting her as she struggled to get away would probably have started a riot and no doubt that would be the fault of the police service too. If peaceful protests were actually peaceful none of this would happen. They aren't though, that's just a name.

Linny get a grip! If the girlie was a threat - and I would not be surprised if she was verbally confrontational - totally different from the Tomlinson situation, then why not just arrest her? 63 arrested supposedly so room for plenty more in nick. Doesn't look that dangerous to me - all photographers and no demonstrators! Indeed why not arrest Tomlinson if he was a threat?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01385/POLICENICKY_1385450c.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01385/POLICENICKY_1385450c.jpg)

http://images.dailystar-uk.co.uk/dynamic/1/x237/77193_2.jpg

[Slid]

So, kids, have you decided who was to blame?
Was it the rioters?
Or the ones who incited said riot?
Or the 23 year old boys that were sent to protect the guilty?

[Juicy Lucy]

Am I the only one who groaned when it was reported on the news that the woman has now instructed Max Clifford to represent her?

[SplashNblub]

Am I the only one who groaned when it was reported on the news that the woman has now instructed Max Clifford to represent her?
Nope -groaning throughout the land no doubt :devil: A disappointment but at least she has said that she does not want the poor chap to lose his job.

[Pandi]

Am I the only one who groaned when it was reported on the news that the woman has now instructed Max Clifford to represent her?
Well he's lost the milk cow formally known as Jade-
Looking at Splashnb's smaller pic.The "bruise" on the back of her thigh looks more like a graze or burn,the smaller bruise on her calf would match a smack with a baton.

Nope -groaning throughout the land no doubt :devil: A disappointment but at least she has said that she does not want the poor chap to lose his job.
Too right.He should have nicked her for wearing really bad knickers in the first place.Why use a B&Q tape measure to compare sizes.IS she being lined up for adverts?

[Shakermaker]

The running to max clifford made me laugh. She was looking for some sort of reaction and she got one.

Its just more PC ******** and all that will come of it is a police force that ends up too scared to do anything in future.

[broomhillsaved]

The assault on Ian Tomlinson remains the more serious one because he had his back to the officers and wasn't waving his arms or anything. The officer who struck him knew he had no chance of seeing that the baton blow was coming. He also took a step back to hit him with greater force.

The woman on the other hand definitely seems trying to provoke a reaction, secures one and is now obviously milking the situation for all its worth. Two very different situations.

I do think it's difficult for the police force as a whole to decide on appropriate action - if they don't do enough then crowds can start rioting (even if the original intention was peaceful) and if they do too much then you get the "Taliban" headlines that were in the papers yesterday.

[SplashNblub]

Looking at Splashnb's smaller pic.The "bruise" on the back of her thigh looks more like a graze or burn,the smaller bruise on her calf would match a smack with a baton.
Not that I know anything about these things :) but looks like a classic full on strike across the hamstring to me - one of the places that British Police are trained to hit (there are very few strikes that they are allowed to use unless faced with potentially lethal force) as it will bring down & totally disable anyone but not break any bones. The small tip is used more to strike a wrist or forearm if the suspect is holding a knife for example. It will cause temporary nerve damage and often crush a localised area of bone which will repair quite quickly.

[Pandi]

Not that I know anything about these things :) but looks like a classic full on strike across the hamstring to me - one of the places that British Police are trained to hit (there are very few strikes that they are allowed to use unless faced with potentially lethal force) as it will bring down & totally disable anyone but not break any bones. The small tip is used more to strike a wrist or forearm if the suspect is holding a knife for example. It will cause temporary nerve damage and often crush a localised area of bone which will repair quite quickly.

All gone quiet on this since "the one hit wonder" went running to Cliiford(or did he offer to make her money on the back of the tomlinson attention)And allegations were made about her in the press.Which seem to have the opposite affect on what she wanted in the first place.:fingers:
My 2nd. autopsy will show due to years of heavy drinking & being alcohol dependent.Tomlinsons bodie organs were no longer capable of functioning properly.Plod involved just picked the wrong day to push him over.:cheers:

[Spidey]

Ouch, this is like a claims direct ad gone wrong.