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

[winjer]

i can guarantee nobody has been or will ever be charged with the offence of assaulting a copper in the execution of his duty for breaking out of a kettle.

You can't guarantee that, because it's a load of old toot.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...epared-says-policeman-hurt-in-student-riot.do

Ironic t-shirt: model's own.

No you didn't. You made no mention of failing to recognise the difference between criminal and civil law ... and you did not need to look at the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

You've been here long enough to know that when someone says 'CJA' they mean the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There was a clue in the "since the 1990s" part too. Not that it really matters either way of course, as it's the Public Order Act 1986 which contains the power in question.

And the judges bent over backwards to say the legal justification for kettling in this instance could apply only to the very unique and very specific things that happened on mayday 2001.

No they didn't. The conditions attached were that kettling or other restrictions "must be resorted to in good faith, that they must be proportionate and that they are enforced for no longer than is reasonably necessary."

The judgement made specific note on the fact if these things weren't in place on mayday 2001 then maybe, just maybe it would have been an unlawful detention.

Can you quote where they specifically noted that please, because I can't find it.

 

[rekil]

you don't really like cops, do you?

They're alright. It's just the few bad apples, a couple of dozen tops, that get on my wick.

My heart is quite warmed by the fact that at least two of those cops seem to be in the process of stopping the others, batons drawn, from beating her....the pic could be deceiving on so many levels though..

All I know is that it's from October's protests in Lyon and French coppers are a notorious shower of batonhappy fecks.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

There's something Tintoretto like about that photo.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

They're alright. It's just the few bad apples, a couple of dozen tops, that get on my wick.

Apparently, "capitalism pays our dole, & if we hate capitalism so much why don't we move to Russia", were the words from one of them to me today.

I can see why that shit gets on your wick

 

[frogwoman]

 

[ViolentPanda]

They're alright. It's just the few bad apples, a couple of dozen tops, that get on my wick.

Per station? That's a bit excessive, I'd say. Probably no more than a dozen.

All I know is that it's from October's protests in Lyon and French coppers are a notorious shower of batonhappy fecks.

Thing is, you know where you stand with the CRS. They're the SS of the riot cop world. They'd smash your head in as soon as look at you. They're probably waiting for that young lady in the picture to stand up, just so that they can knock her down again, such is their cuntitude.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Apparently, "capitalism pays our dole, & if we hate capitalism so much why don't we move to Russia", were the words from one of them to me today.

I can see why that shit gets on your wick

The bellend did realise that Russia is, like, hyper-capitalist, right?

Actually, stupid question, really.

 

[rekil]

Apparently, "capitalism pays our dole, & if we hate capitalism so much why don't we move to Russia", were the words from one of them to me today.

So alienated, he's gone back in time.

Thing is, you know where you stand with the CRS. They're the SS of the riot cop world. They'd smash your head in as soon as look at you. They're probably waiting for that young lady in the picture to stand up, just so that they can knock her down again, such is their cuntitude.

Arguing over whose turn it is to whack her is my guess.

 

[revlon]

You can't guarantee that, because it's a load of old toot.


Ironic t-shirt: model's own.


You've been here long enough to know that when someone says 'CJA' they mean the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There was a clue in the "since the 1990s" part too. Not that it really matters either way of course, as it's the Public Order Act 1986 which contains the power in question.


No they didn't. The conditions attached were that kettling or other restrictions "must be resorted to in good faith, that they must be proportionate and that they are enforced for no longer than is reasonably necessary."


Can you quote where they specifically noted that please, because I can't find it.

1. simple practicalities. If the cps were going to charge someone it would be for common assault - Nicking someone on the day the copper would have to explain how is actions were keeping the peace, notirously difficult, as burden is on the copper to justify the legal nature of his actions.
Coppers maintaining a kettle cannot arrest people there and then. Therefore any kettling arrest would involve a post-offence arrest. That would involve the copper in the executon of his duty seeking out the indvidual that assaulted him and arresting him.

toot all want but reality is kettling isn't a tool to increase the crime statistics, it wasn't devised or managed for that purpose. Breaking out of kettle is an operational failure not a criminal activity.

2.

The appellant submits that it is plain that she was deprived of her right to liberty. She says that the reason why the cordon was put in place and kept there for so long is irrelevant. If she is right, she must succeed in this appeal. If she is wrong, the judge’s findings are against her. They show conclusively that the sole purpose of the cordon was to maintain public order, that it was proportionate to that need and that those within the cordon were not deprived of their freedom of movement arbitrarily... etc

house of lords
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090128/austin-1.htm

there is then four pages which justifies why austin failed in article 5. Those were very specific factors. Take away those specific factors and austin case would have succeeded.

 

[The Black Hand]

The black hand, there's bigger issues at play here. Cut this out.

Hi Butch, you're funny, I have been the one stressing the totality previously.

Anyway what happened was - I post something positive together with a critique of fetishised behaviour, and the resulting negativity coming from the ultra left on U75 gets the contempt it deserves in reply from me, then you chip in for some unknown reason.

That is what happened in this case and any genuinely independent reader would draw the same descriptive conclusions (i invite readers to look from post 2858 & further down page 115 of this thread to see the truth of what I have just said).

Your (ultra left) mirror is totally introverted and uncritical, backing each other up in an intellectually compromised self referential manner... But then, that has been the behaviour for such a long time its embarrasing. BUT how long for the bubble to burst (it will do one day) the question is only when...

 

[ymu]

A senior doctor has warned that police risk repeating a Hillsborough-type tragedy if they continue with tactics deployed during the recent tuition fee protests.

The anaesthetist from Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, who gave medical assistance to the protesters, said that officers forced demonstrators into such a tight "kettle" on Westminster Bridge that they were in danger of being seriously crushed or pushed into the freezing River Thames.

The 34-year-old doctor, who set up a field hospital in Parliament Square, said that people on the bridge suffered respiratory problems, chest pains and the symptoms of severe crushing.

"Police had us so closely packed, I couldn't move my feet or hands an inch. We were in that situation like that for hours. People in the middle were having real difficulty breathing.

"It was the most disturbing thing I've ever seen – it must have been what Hillsborough was like. The crush was just so great. Repeatedly I tried to speak to officers, telling them that I was a doctor and that this was a serious health and safety risk," said the doctor, who did not want to be named.

...

The Aberdeen doctor added: "The sides of the bridge were only waist high and all it would have taken is one stumble and someone could have gone over the side. I'm surprised that no one died there. And if anyone had been injured, I would have struggled to respond even if I was stood next to them." She said that when several police became caught inside the kettle they were screaming to get out. "They were experiencing what we were experiencing."

Her comments also include allegations of disproportionate police violence, pointing to the number of serious head injuries among protesters. Along with two colleagues who had volunteered to staff a field hospital, the doctor said they treated around 30 protesters.

"It got incredibly violent. The vast majority of injuries I saw were head injuries. I was surprised how much force the police had used. Between us we probably saw thirty folk. A couple of people also had injuries to their wrists and elbows where they had raised their hands to cover themselves from baton blows."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/19/police-kettle-risk-crush-hillsborough

.

 

[winjer]

1. simple practicalities. If the cps were going to charge someone it would be for common assault - Nicking someone on the day the copper would have to explain how is actions were keeping the peace, notirously difficult, as burden is on the copper to justify the legal nature of his actions. Coppers maintaining a kettle cannot arrest people there and then. Therefore any kettling arrest would involve a post-offence arrest.

The charge would be (and indeed has been) assaulting a cop in the execution of their duty, police maintaining kettle can and do arrest people there and then, and those outside the immediate kettle line can even more easily arrest someone who has got out, who they believe to have just assaulted a cop.

That would involve the copper in the executon of his duty seeking out the indvidual that assaulted him and arresting him.

It so totally would not. Please stop posting pub law, it helps nobody except the police.

there is then four pages which justifies why austin failed in article 5. Those were very specific factors. Take away those specific factors and austin case would have succeeded.

Your quotation doesn't provide anything approaching a set of specific factors, if you had read that paragraph properly you would have noticed that it depends on Article 5(1) not being engaged by kettling, not that this specific case was justified under Article 5(2).

From Lord Hope's final para "This was not the kind of arbitrary deprivation of liberty that is proscribed by the Convention, so article 5(1) was not applicable in this case."

 

[detective-boy]

No, I'm saying that the balance of probabilities should be in your favour.

What are you arguing about then? That is pretty much the state of affairs as the law is now. Marches aren't banned just on the basis of some fucking rumour ... and the decision is subject to judicial review if anyone can be arsed taking proceedings ...

 

[detective-boy]

Now, I can't pretend that "some of my best friends are homosexuals", but from those gay men (and lesbians for that matter) that I do know, none of them, when questioned after your original tizzy, thought that such phrases were homophobic, or even more than mildly abusive. perhaps they're insensitive, though.

That's because you haven't explained what fucking happened accurately. I would guarantee that they would consider it homophobically offensive if you actually bothered to tell them the truth: that (a) the phrase "drama queen" was used in a hostile manner by someone who knew me to be gay in the first instance; (b) my response was to politely explain that I found that use of the phrase by that person to be offensive and to please not do so again"; and (c) they, intead of desisting, repeatedly used the same phrase, in the same context and clearly deliberatly intending to aim at my sexual orientation and, when called again and again, resorted to using other ambiguous phrases such as "You're batty".

Why don't you fucking try it instead of pontificating and belittling my experience as the victim of homophobically offensive abuse, allowed to go unchallenged by the fucking mods?

As always, it's be fucking illuminating for you if you replaced all the sexual orientation references with race or colour references and then tried to argue that what is happening isn't racially offensive ...

Of course I won't

No. You fucking won't. Not put up or shut the fuck up.

Prick.

 

[detective-boy]

If "hissy fit" and "drama queen" are homophobia-motivated abuse, then he was abused.
If, on the other had, they're everyday terms that, when applied to people regardless of their sexual preferences, mean "fit of temper" and "melodramatic twit" respectively, then he wasn't abused.

IF (and I'm NOT) I was arguing that the fucking terms were homophobic per se then you would have a point. But I'm NOT. And I wouldn't seek to argue that they are.

I AM arguing that they are being used in a homophobically offensive way by one fucking poster, who knows exactly what he is fucking doing and, as a gay man himself, he should know fucking better.

Now how about thinking about the fucking issue and learning something instead of gobbing off about something your clearly do not understand, you ignorant cunt.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

 

[detective-boy]

You really are a strange little man.

Not as fucking strange as an idiot who claims that if he didn't see something during a massive, long-term and wide-ranging demonstration then it didn't happen anywhere in connection with the demonstration at any time.

If you're fucking stupid enough to believe that then, to be honest, you're too fucking stupid to bother with ...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hi Butch, you're funny, I have been the one stressing the totality previously.

Anyway what happened was - I post something positive together with a critique of fetishised behaviour, and the resulting negativity coming from the ultra left on U75 gets the contempt it deserves in reply from me, then you chip in for some unknown reason.

That is what happened in this case and any genuinely independent reader would draw the same descriptive conclusions (i invite readers to look from post 2858 & further down page 115 of this thread to see the truth of what I have just said).

Your (ultra left) mirror is totally introverted and uncritical, backing each other up in an intellectually compromised self referential manner... But then, that has been the behaviour for such a long time its embarrasing. BUT how long for the bubble to burst (it will do one day) the question is only when...

Here we go again!

 

[xes]

you are a drama queen though. (seriously, read that post from someone who's just joined the coversation, and only read this last page, you're banging on about the phrase drama queen, in the most dramatically queenly way possible. I picture you throwing your hands in the air, whilst typing it out)

you great big drama queen.

I'm allowed to say it, cos i'm also a big cock sucking homo

oooooh the drama

 

[ViolentPanda]

.

What does he know? he's only a fucking doctor, you idiot!

 

[detective-boy]

So to conclude: kettling as a police tactic is only justified in law under very specific circumstances. Those circusmtances weren't met during the kettling of the 3 previous student protests.

Well done for missing the basic premise of UK law that something is lawful unless it is specifically made unlawful.

Containment is NOT unlawful.

Containment has been acknowkledged by the Courts to be lawful in some circumstances. They have NOT restricted it's use to any particular circumstances.

 

[xes]

crushing people is unlawful, though.

(sorry, i would have thought, i'm sure it can be "justified" in copper land)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Detention without charge is also unlawful.

d-b would make a shit lawyer.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What are you arguing about then? That is pretty much the state of affairs as the law is now.
Marches aren't banned just on the basis of some fucking rumour ... and the decision is subject to judicial review if anyone can be arsed taking proceedings ...

As usual with your festivals of eye-rolling, you fail to assemble the pieces of the jigsaw. It's a hazard of your insistence on selectively editing posts and taking single lines out of context.

If you were as on-the-ball as you believe yourself to be, you'd have realised that the issues of substantiveness and the concerns about agents provocateurs are part of the same theme. Instead, you're so obsessed with proving yourself right, that the point often sails right over your pointy little head.

 

[detective-boy]

....the pic could be deceiving on so many levels though..

No, no ... not at all.

The picture always tells the whole story. Always.

There's dozens of pricks here who post to that effect regularly so it must be true ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fuck off, d-b.

 

[detective-boy]

If the cps were going to charge someone it would be for common assault - Nicking someone on the day the copper would have to explain how is actions were keeping the peace, notirously difficult, as burden is on the copper to justify the legal nature of his actions.
Coppers maintaining a kettle cannot arrest people there and then. Therefore any kettling arrest would involve a post-offence arrest. That would involve the copper in the executon of his duty seeking out the indvidual that assaulted him and arresting him.

Absolute bollocks you fucking moron. Officers in cordons will sometimes arrest people there and then if they do not desist in their assaults. There are invariably officers behind the line able to arrest people trying to break through (or, even more obviously, who actually do break through). And snatch squad tactics can be used to dive into crowds and arrest identified principal offenders. And the offence would be assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty. Enforcing a cordon as part of an overall public order strategy would be entirely within the remit of their fucking duty.

Please stop gobbing off about something you clearly do not understand. It is embarassing for you. And fucking tedious to keep correcting the bollocks you are chatting.

Oh, and well done for quoting what is clearly part of the argument of the appellant (or, at best, part of the judges reciting the arguments) in the belief that it is the actual judgement of the fucking court setting out the law for the future. Thick cunt.

 

[detective-boy]

It was the most disturbing thing I've ever seen – it must have been what Hillsborough was like.

Yeah ... course it was ... cos, er, loads died just like at, er, Hillsborough ...

I was a doctor and that this was a serious health and safety risk

Oh well, if you're a doctor they should have immediately lifted the whole fucking containment ...

"The sides of the bridge were only waist high and all it would have taken is one stumble and someone could have gone over the side.

Waist high? For a fucking nine foot tall person maybe ... cos people (including drunks on New Years Eve) "stumble" and go over the fucking side all the fucking time ...

Hysterical nonsense.

Quoted with approval by a prejudiced hysteric ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've had enough of this.

Fuck off this thread.

In fact, I'm reporting you for this. It is not an acceptable way to engage with a thread.

 

[detective-boy]

I'm allowed to say it, cos i'm also a big cock sucking homo

No. You're allowed to say it because you haven't used it in a way which is intended to specifically offend me by reference to my being gay. And I haven't politely asked you to stop doing so. And you haven't ignored that.

The fact you are gay is irrelevant.