Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cop strikes woman at G20 on video

Heh, nice Steve Bell retrospective here.

Steve-Bells-If-...-001.jpg
 


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."
 
harpo said:
Apparently so, according to peeps on this thread.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent tactic :)
 
harpo said:
That's an excellent tactic :)
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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—
(a) the common law defence of self-defence; and
(b) the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest).
(3) The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.
(4) If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances—
(a) the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but
(b) if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not—
(i) it was mistaken, or
(ii) (if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.
(5) But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.
(6) The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.
(7) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—
(a) that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
(b) that evidence of a person’s having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.
(8) Subsection (7) is not to be read as preventing other matters from being taken into account where they are relevant to deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3).
(9) This section is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences mentioned in subsection (2).
(10) In this section—
(a) “legitimate purpose” means—
(i) the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or
(ii) the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);
(b) references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and
(c) references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
Click to expand...


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

Either that, or that the institutional culture of "us versus them" is so strongly ingrained as to render the idea of police accountability ridiculous.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
two sheds said:
Granny Exchange tickets should indeed be part of any kettle kit. Colostomy bag, too, for when we get caught short.
Click to expand...

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? :D
 
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
Click to expand...

It can also kill you very easily.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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

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

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 :rolleyes:). 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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fozzie Bear
Trouble at Peace News
Replies
13
Views
867
Rob Ray
Rob Ray
Pickman's model
General Strike 100
Replies
19
Views
899
Kate Sharpley
Kate Sharpley
Rob Ray
Pre-emptive arrests at Climate Camp
Replies
1
Views
402
Rob Ray
Rob Ray
C
New Bosses-same old game: business as usual for the Labour Government ACG online public meeting, August 21st at 7pm
Replies
1
Views
483
charlie mowbray
C
A
Fridays For Future - September 15 Strike
Replies
0
Views
289
Aquamarine
A
Back
Top Bottom