Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th

How long before it's trotted out as an excuse for some pre-emptive head-bashing?
It's often the case that non-fatal force is used on the basis of information that with hindsight turns out to be incorrect.

I have personally CS sprayed someone who I honestly believed was pulling a knife as they were being aggressive and non-compliant, had a hand in their pocket, were telling me they were going to stab me and then pulled out something which was about 6" long and had a metallic glint ... which turned out to be a mobile phone, held in a way that a knife would have been held.

You persistent failure to acknowledge that in the real world force must be able to be used on incomplete information totally undermines your position. You are arguing for something which is simply not possible. And when confronted with the dilemma questions that demonstrate that you always duck out of them.
 
that's good audiotech at least. Unlike you lot, chanting "splitters" at people :D

"You lot?"

As I've pointed out to you already, I left the SWeeP's around twenty years ago.

I can assure you, I've never chanted "splitters" at anyone, except when mimicking the specific Monty Python sketch your post mockingly alludes to. :D
 
Handy thing those "orders", even when illegal.
You state that they are illegal. That cannot be said short of on the basis of a Court decision. The use of containment tactics has been acknowledged by the courts as a lawful tactic, subject to certain guidance. The consistent failure of those who argue against it to acknowledge that fact undermines their position fatally. Containment is NOT illegal per se. Legal fact.

And whilst I would agree that there is scope for individual officers to make individual decisions to let people out in plainly exceptional circumstances, it is ridiculous to expect that anyone who asks nicely to leave should be allowed to do so as that would defeat the purpose of the containment.
 
In the mid '80s I drank in a boozer which got overrun by coppers, after an ex-copper took over the licence. The amount of boasting you'd hear about "scruffy students" and "wogs" having been given a kicking was quite nauseating.
Obviously, these were either just "bad apples", or they were drunkenly telling lies to each other, because such a thing couldn't possibly be a standard mode of behaviour. :)
No-one who knew what they were talking about would argue that that was unusual in the early-mid 80s.

No-one who knew what they were talking about would seek to argue that nothing has changed.
 
Talk to any copper who's been in the job for a few years, one-on-one, and (in my personal and professional experience) the majority (I'd say 4/5ths) of them are alienated (in the psychological rather than the socio-economic sense of the word) from the people they're supposed to serve (except for detective-boy, obviously, because he's perfect!).
In dealing with some minority groups you have a point.

In dealing with college and university students you do not. The vast majority of officers have been students / are students (part-time) / have children or close relatives who are students / have young children who are going to become students.

Again you take a valid point and extend it beyond breaking point.
 
It's called personal testimony ...
I would acknowledge that ... if I thought for a moment that you included my personal testimony as a valid source of evidence.

Which you, and many others here, patently do not.

But for personal testimony to be discussed / accepted by someone else it must include objective descriptions of what was seen / heard / done, not simply a statement of what was perceived by the person giving it.
 
How can coppers possibly identify with students, regardless of whether they have been one (and they have all been school students) when they start on £25k fresh out of school. FFS! The only other students that start on that sort of money are doctors, and cunts who work in the city. They have no fucking idea what the real world looks like for most of us.
 
I was using containment tactics, which involved preventing people leaving, holding them for extended periods of time (though not as long as some exmaples recently) and taking names / addresses / photographs as they were released, as long ago as the late 1980s.

Containment is nothing new. The fact that you have invented a cool new name for it dosn't change that fact.

Frankly, I'm not that bothered with your defence of police tactics, that are clearly raising concerns amongst a sizeable section of the populace. Specifically, people who would normally be supportive of the police.
 
No. Facts are facts. But before we can know what they are there has to be an inquiry or investigation unless we personally witnessed everything of any relevance to the situation.


Society, through politicians. Usually the judiciary are appointed as that is what they are in their day jobs.


Only if they commit an offence justifying arrest, otherwise they would be sued for unlawful arrest. But they would not be "independent" anyway - they are evidence gatherers for one side.


Where have I said the police should be independent. In any challenge to the lawfulness of their actions they clearly are anything but independent. :rolleyes:

Facts, and particularly the sort of 'facts' you're trying to claim authority for, are observations seen from a certain perspective; your choice of perspective is consistently craven.

Laughable made no less so by your example; remember that leading light of the judiciary who thought that the retention of capital punishment would have solved some high profile miscarriages of justice?

This goes so far beyond naivety as to become bare faced lying; the only police officers ever to exceed their powers of arrest have been sued for doing so? Here were are back with your 'the police as a force never instigate violence' claptrap.

It's almost as if your every statement is made to make you look more ridiculous and undermine your defense of the police further.

Louis MacNeice
 
Its a DB quote from the future...
Of course none of your perfect soliders have ever fired or used any other force on the basis of something that, with hindsight, tunred out to be wrong have they ...

You just can't stop yourself having an anti-police / pro-soldier pop can you ... :rolleyes:
 
Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson faces mounting pressure after footage emerged showing an officer policing Thursday's student protests not wearing identification.
So that is one example that has been publicised (despite hundreds of photographers and protestors with cameraphones just looking for the opportunity to get their pic / footage on YouTube) ... out of many thousands of officers on duty.

I think it proves that things have improved rather than being the basis for the Commissioner resigning ... :rolleyes
 
I would acknowledge that ... if I thought for a moment that you included my personal testimony as a valid source of evidence.

Which you, and many others here, patently do not.

But for personal testimony to be discussed / accepted by someone else it must include objective descriptions of what was seen / heard / done, not simply a statement of what was perceived by the person giving it.

I'm quite happy to include your personal testimony in any discussion; what I'm not willing to do is to let you claim it as some sort of universal proof. With regard the discussion of the police instigating violence, you are trying to say this never happens (I don't have to post the quote yet again do I?); you include the oversight you gained as a senior officer to back up this universal claim.

Myself and others have said this is not our experience; we are not trying to claim the universal position that the police always instigate violence, rather the acceptance that it does happen sometimes. You see how personal testimony is being used for two very different purposes; one to close down debate the other to open it up?

Your trouble, as I pointed out previously, is that you start from a set of assumptions re. the police and then fit the evidence (or dismiss it) according to the demands of those assumptions; it's not really in the true spirit of detection.

Louis MacNeice
 
but it is perfectly acceptable as DB has kindly explained to us all :facepalm: :(
makes me physically sick and again, fair play to the ambulance driver
No I haven't you lying prick. :mad:

I have explained it is perfectly standard practice. And that that practice is founded on the very sensible basis that it makes sense not to let two opposing factions gather together again in a fucking hospital when a bit of pre-planning means that they can be in entirely equivalent different hospitals. And that if someone with serious injuries turns up at the "wrong" one because of a fuck up they should of course be treated (as they invariably are).

(And I note that there has been NOTHING to show that anything more than "You're at the wrong hospital mate" , "This guys really bad, he needs emergency treatment now", "OK then, lets have a look ... bring him through" happened here. But then aagin, why let the truth get in the way of an urban myth ...)
 
I was wondering if the police action might also be complained about to the HSE as the police would have to justify their risk assessment for the event and if they've missed out well known research on crowds and reactions to kettles while this may not lead to prosecutions this time but in future demos they may be considered in breach of the act having not acted on scientific research if they go ahead in the same manner.
And the Health and Safety Risk Assessment of allowing rampaging mobs to do whatever they like ... :rolleyes:
 
"The ambulance man took us to Chelsea and Westminster hospital. That [hospital] had been given over to police injuries and there was a standoff in the corridor. Alfie was obviously a protester and the police didn't want him there, but the ambulance man insisted that he stayed."

She said that he was then asked to take Alfie to another hospital. "The ambulance man was appalled and he said: 'I'm getting angry now, and I'm not going to do this.'

"The senior nurse in charge took us into a resuscitation room to keep us away from the police because, she said, they were finding it upsetting to see protesters in the hospital."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/12/police-injured-protester-hospital

Poor little piggies murdering cunts.
 
Fire extinguisher.
You could have added "... necessary because the violent thugs in the protests attack firefighters called to extinguish fires they start, in the same way that the police now have to employ medics because the violent thugs in the protests attack paramedics called to deal with injured people (police or protestors)".

But you wouldn't ... because clearly any violence used against the firefighters and the paramedics is by the police, not the lickle, lambykins, peaceful protestors ... :rolleyes:
 
No I haven't you lying prick. :mad:

...I note that there has been NOTHING to show that anything more than "You're at the wrong hospital mate" , "This guys really bad, he needs emergency treatment now", "OK then, lets have a look ... bring him through" happened here. But then aagin, why let the truth get in the way of an urban myth ...)

By the same token what you've written above could be described as a police myth, given that there's nothing to show that this is what happened.

These aren't facts DB, and you trying to claim them as such - or to dismiss them as myth - makes you look narrow minded and desperate.

Louis MacNeice
 
You could have added "... necessary because the violent thugs in the protests attack firefighters called to extinguish fires they start, in the same way that the police now have to employ medics because the violent thugs in the protests attack paramedics called to deal with injured people (police or protestors)".

But you wouldn't ... because clearly any violence used against the firefighters and the paramedics is by the police, not the lickle, lambykins, peaceful protestors ... :rolleyes:
Wut?
 
Back
Top Bottom