Cop strikes woman at G20 on video
- Thread starter albionism
- Start date
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
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
Luke 5:16
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
Luke 5:16
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.
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.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
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
hiraethified
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
hiraethified
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
F.O.A.D
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
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Inverted commas round irony, please! I've never been cider-fuelled in my life.
winjer
holocene death beat
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
holocene death beat
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.
February.
xes
F.O.A.D
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
Fundamentalist Druid
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.
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
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
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
jubliado
And when they're overturned, the government gets to blame Europe for being soft on whatever it's soft on.
editor
hiraethified
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
hiraethified
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
Fundamentalist Druid
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.
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
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Not seen that one. Do the BBC/Guardian/Times have it?
likesfish
You can't park here sir
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
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
Least noticed poster 2007
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.
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
for an armed populace
^^This
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
Listening to Radio Jackie
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.
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.
