Cop strikes woman at G20 on video

[editor]

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

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

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

"I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute.

There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued."

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html#police

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

enough bad apples to make shitloads of MetPol brand cider now

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

 

[Bernie Gunther]

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

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

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

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

 

[laptop]

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

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

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

 

[paolo]

I can imagine the conversation:

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

I think you might be over estimating loyalty.

Here's another possibility:

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

 

[Bernie Gunther]

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

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

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

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

“Kettling” is a tactic that should come under review. At the first sign of difficulty, the police present a wall of riot shields and batons around protesters — the peaceful alongside the problematic — and slowly squeeze them into a tighter space. People are allowed in, but absolutely no one is allowed to leave.

Slowly the number of inmates increases. No access to food. No water. Young trapped with the old. Journalists trapped with anarchists. People, like an elderly couple I spoke to, who simply did not want to be there at all.

It is not surprising that under such conditions an otherwise overwhelmingly relaxed and peaceful crowd can become agitated, then angry, and then violent

source

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

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

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

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

 

[scooter]

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

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

He'll be lucky to escape prison.

 

[Herbert Read]

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

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

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

 

[Herbert Read]

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

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

What is FITwatch?

 

[XR75]

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

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

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

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

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree and disagree with this.

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

They weren't initially.

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

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

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

 

[laptop]

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

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

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

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

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip>

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

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

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

 

[XR75]

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

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

 

[paolo]

I agree and disagree with this.

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

They weren't initially.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wilf]

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

.

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

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

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

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

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

We're on the same page.

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

 

[Bernie Gunther]

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

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

We're on the same page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

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

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

 

[nick h.]

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

So true.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I love some of the captions on FITwatch:

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

 

[shaman75]

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

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

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

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

So true.

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

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

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

 

[XR75]

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

You guys are so funny.

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

Their reports accuracy and objectivity is lacking at times.

 

[Wilf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Goodness. How free-thinking.

 

[nick h.]

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

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

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

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

 

[Herbert Read]

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

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

 

[Wilf]

Goodness. How free-thinking.

Moi?

 

[editor]

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

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

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

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