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

[ViolentPanda]

But of course this, i can guarentee, will never happen

What makes you believe this to be the case?

 

[winjer]

footage from in front of one of the police lines as the protesters are forced in backwards into a crush situation despite protesting that there is nowhere for them to go, no room, asking where they want them to go etc. at which point the police horses are seen to force their way into the crowd with mild panic ensuing. (horses move in at around 5.20 on the clip)

This second video isn't from the bridge kettle, or even on Westminster Bridge, it's somewhere on Whitehall.

At the time it says it was shot Westminster Bridge was empty - I cycled across it at a quarter-to-six, the bridge kettle started around half-eight.

 

[free spirit]

Yes. I have commented on it specifically. The footage shows that the containment was tight but nowhere near as tight as suggested by the hysterical comments of the "Aberdeen doctor". And the use of horses was controlled and the fact that the crowd were moved back in response demonstrates that there was somewhere for them to move back to. As I have said, containment as a tactic only works if it is pretty tight.


No. I have commented that the containment was for a longer period than I would have expected to be justifiable and that I personally consider it unwise to have it on a bridge over the Thames. But no-one was hurt by the action and thus there is no prima facie evidence that any duty of care has been breached, let alone "clear evidence" of that.

If anyone thinks it was they are entitled to take action in the Courts and, having heard all the evidence (including why the containment was used and what was believed may happen if it was not used) and not just the bits whcih happen to be in the public domain, they will decide if it was justified or not.

nobody actually needs to have been injured to demonstrate that the duty of care was breached, otherwise companies would only be able to be prosecuted after someone had been injured rather than simply for operating in an unsafe manor. But then you're well aware of this.

In a tight over crowded situation such as this on a bridge, in the dark, where there the crowd is 100% contained on both sides with no clear space to move into, the use of horses clearly amounts to wrecklessly endangering the lives of the people inside the kettle who the police had a duty of care for at the time.

You're aware that the major danger in a situation such as this is from a stampede, particularly given that there are presumably raised pavements, central reservations and other hidden trip hazards, and that every effort should be made by those in control of the situation to avoid doing anything that may provoke such a stamped - ie not sending in horses.

this was a major incident waiting to happen, and it's been a major incident waiting to happen since mayday 2000 when I first witnessed this tactic, and got myself arrested rather than being forced into such an obviously dangerous situation.

The HSE and/or IPCC need to urgently investigate this before people actually do get killed.

 

[dylans]

Yes. I have commented on it specifically. The footage shows that the containment was tight but nowhere near as tight as suggested by the hysterical comments of the "Aberdeen doctor". And the use of horses was controlled and the fact that the crowd were moved back in response demonstrates that there was somewhere for them to move back to. As I have said, containment as a tactic only works if it is pretty tight.


No. I have commented that the containment was for a longer period than I would have expected to be justifiable and that I personally consider it unwise to have it on a bridge over the Thames. But no-one was hurt by the action and thus there is no prima facie evidence that any duty of care has been breached, let alone "clear evidence" of that.

If anyone thinks it was they are entitled to take action in the Courts and, having heard all the evidence (including why the containment was used and what was believed may happen if it was not used) and not just the bits whcih happen to be in the public domain, they will decide if it was justified or not.

This flippant "noone died so it was fine" bollocks really pisses me off. Several weeks ago I spent a terrified weekend waiting for news from my sons family in Cambodia after nearly 400 people were suffocated to death in a Bridge in Phnom Penh. In almost exactly the same circumstances as the police kettle. People on a Bridge being pushed from both sides towards an increasingly packed centre by police at both ends of the bridge.
400 people.
Ok, no one died in London thank goodness, but they could easily have and people in that kettle were distraught and terrified that they could If, in a future incident people do die, you will have to hang your head in shame for treating the potential dangers with such glib indifference. Hysterical indeed.

(cue for db to start swearing at me)

 

[free spirit]

This second video isn't from the bridge kettle, or even on Westminster Bridge, it's somewhere on Whitehall.

At the time it says it was shot Westminster Bridge was empty - I cycled across it at a quarter-to-six, the bridge kettle started around half-eight.

I stand corrected.

It still doesn't look like a particularly safe situation, but it's obviously not so obvious how much of a problem it was, or how much justification there was for using the horses without the overhead footage / knowing what else was going on around it.

 

[revlon]

What makes you believe this to be the case?

execution of duty relies on the officer being legally entitled to behave the way he is doing - hitting people over the head with his baton, thrusting the side of his shield into the faces of children, holding people for over eight hours in a kettle. That individual officer must be able to justify his actions.

All this will have to be played out in court - specially as the legality of kettling is being openly questioned. So every case of a copper arresting someone for assault execution of duty while breaking out of a kettle will be a criticism of the kettling process, with lots of intersting facts emerging about that the acpos would rather we didn't know.

The whole operation will have to be exposed.

 

[where to]

If anyone thinks it was they are entitled to take action in the Courts and, having heard all the evidence (including why the containment was used and what was believed may happen if it was not used) and not just the bits whcih happen to be in the public domain, they will decide if it was justified or not.

can i ask you to speculate as to why it would ever be necessary or gainful for the Police to hold 1000+ people in a tight space on a bridge for several hours at that time of night, in that sort of weather?

genuinely, what possible purpose can that have served?

i can't help but wonder if they weren't wishing someone would jump into the Thames and do themselves in. totally bizarre tactics.

 

[ViolentPanda]

execution of duty relies on the officer being legally entitled to behave the way he is doing - hitting people over the head with his baton, thrusting the side of his shield into the faces of children, holding people for over eight hours in a kettle. That individual officer must be able to justify his actions.

All this will have to be played out in court - specially as the legality of kettling is being openly questioned. So every case of a copper arresting someone for assault execution of duty while breaking out of a kettle will be a criticism of the kettling process, with lots of intersting facts emerging about that the acpos would rather we didn't know.

The whole operation will have to be exposed.

You're presupposing the case would get to court.

That's one of the things about our criminal justice system - one hand often washes the other.

 

[audiotech]

Just out. Informative video by an independent journalist looking at police tactics and its effects on protesters on the day.

 

[ViolentPanda]

can i ask you to speculate as to why it would ever be necessary or gainful for the Police to hold 1000+ people in a tight space on a bridge for several hours at that time of night, in that sort of weather?

Perverse sexual gratification?

genuinely, what possible purpose can that have served?

Perverse sexual gratification?

i can't help but wonder if they weren't wishing someone would jump into the Thames and do themselves in. totally bizarre tactics.

Not if you'd get perverse sexual gratification from someone doing that.

 

[dylans]

can i ask you to speculate as to why it would ever be necessary or gainful for the Police to hold 1000+ people in a tight space on a bridge for several hours at that time of night, in that sort of weather?

genuinely, what possible purpose can that have served?

i can't help but wonder if they weren't wishing someone would jump into the Thames and do themselves in. totally bizarre tactics.

The purpose is clear. Demoralisation. It is to ensure a significant number of demonstrators don't demonstrate again. For this reason it is fundamentally undemocratic.

 

[shaman75]

Just out. Informative video by an independent journalist looking at police tactics and its effects on protesters on the day.

Good video.

 

[detective-boy]

But of course this, i can guarentee, will never happen

It happens all the bloody time, you moron.

I have actually attended court myself and explained why I directed officers to cordon a particular area, and the basis and purpose for my order, to establish that they were acting in the execution of their duty when assaulted by some prick (who had no doubt read shite such as that post and was gobbing off about "knowing his rights" ...).

 

[detective-boy]

So tbf it was unlawful if you thought it wrong?

No. Despite all the infantile posts implying otherwise what I think is not law. I thought it ill-advised and over long. That is simply the opinion of one person. Unlike the majority of posters on this thread I am not arrogant enough to make pronouncements on the lawfulness or otherwise of any particular thing.

I think if it is challenged the police are likely to encounter difficulties. Not about it's location as no-one fell in the Thames and the Courts will not be concerned over what might have been and do not see it as their role to direct the police as to how deploy officers in controlling public disorder or any other role. But, if anything, about the length of time that it was maintained. The Courts are likely to draw parallels with the general law of breach of the peace and it is now clear and fairly settled law that detention of an individual in order to prevent a breach of the peace must finish as soon as the opportunity for the breach of the peace has passed. I think that the Courts will take some convincing that continued containment was necessary late into the night after everyone else had gone home ...

 

[detective-boy]

nobody actually needs to have been injured to demonstrate that the duty of care was breached, otherwise companies would only be able to be prosecuted after someone had been injured rather than simply for operating in an unsafe manor. But then you're well aware of this.

Insofar as the HSE are concerned, yes. (And it is a matter for them whether they institute an investigation into any possible breach of H&S law).

Insofar as the Courts are concerned (other than in relation to a H&S prosecution), no.

The HSE and/or IPCC need to urgently investigate this before people actually do get killed.

I have commented on the use of various tactics. I do not consider the use of containment to be amongst the more dangerous. It is far more likely that a demonstrator will be killed by a baton strike to the head (it almost happened here), a blow to the head from a shield edge or by a high speed mounted police advance into a crowd (NOT as seen in the footage from last week, but as seen in footage from the middle one of the demonstrations which got no mainstream publicity).

 

[detective-boy]

In almost exactly the same circumstances as the police kettle.

Situation 1: No-one suffocates (or even comes close). No-one dies from any cause. No serious injuries of any sort are caused.
Situation 2: 400 people dies, many from suffocation.

Yeah mate. Almost exactly the same ...

You really don't help your argument by drawing hysterical and ridiculous parallels. If I drew parallels between what we have seen this week and, say, the major inner city disorder of the 80s (mobs running amok, vehicles being attacked at random, premises being looted ...) you'd quite rightly say I was talking bollocks.

Take a look at yourself ...

 

[detective-boy]

genuinely, what possible purpose can that have served?

Containment could only be justified if it were necessary to control a crowd which there are reasonable grounds to suspect was likely to cause significant violence or disorder.

The location would be largely irrelevant and driven by where the need arose and where the crowd were. I suspect the bridge was used as it has two sides already contained (which makes the containment easier to activate and maintain operationally).

I have already commented that I see significant downsides of using a bridge and personally do not consider it was a wise thing to do unless there was no alternative.

I have also commented on how I think the police may have difficulty if challenged in the Courts, in justifying the length of the containment.

 

[detective-boy]

Just out. Informative video by an independent journalist looking at police tactics and its effects on protesters on the day.

* Starts watching "independent" report. *

* Gives up after a couple of minutes when the "independent journalist" discounts violent acts by protestors for the third or fourth time and continually describes the police tactics as "stupid". *

I am afraid his commentary provides absolutely no confidence that his editing of his footage will be at all balanced.

 

[Steel Icarus]

Situation 1: No-one suffocates (or even comes close). No-one dies from any cause. No serious injuries of any sort are caused.
Situation 2: 400 people dies, many from suffocation.

Yeah mate. Almost exactly the same ...

You really don't help your argument by drawing hysterical and ridiculous parallels. If I drew parallels between what we have seen this week and, say, the major inner city disorder of the 80s (mobs running amok, vehicles being attacked at random, premises being looted ...) you'd quite rightly say I was talking bollocks.

Take a look at yourself ...

Would you agree that kettling, given an unlucky set of not-ever-so-unlikely circumstances, has the potential to cause injuries or much, much worse to a bunch of people who cannot possibly ALL be troublemakers?

 

[killer b]

You could have used the multiquote function. Although you'd be limited to 5 rolleyes, so perhaps not.

 

[Citizen66]

It happens all the bloody time, you moron.

I have actually attended court myself and explained why I directed officers to cordon a particular area, and the basis and purpose for my order, to establish that they were acting in the execution of their duty when assaulted by some prick (who had no doubt read shite such as that post and was gobbing off about "knowing his rights" ...).

No. Despite all the infantile posts implying otherwise what I think is not law. I thought it ill-advised and over long. That is simply the opinion of one person. Unlike the majority of posters on this thread I am not arrogant enough to make pronouncements on the lawfulness or otherwise of any particular thing.

I think if it is challenged the police are likely to encounter difficulties. Not about it's location as no-one fell in the Thames and the Courts will not be concerned over what might have been and do not see it as their role to direct the police as to how deploy officers in controlling public disorder or any other role. But, if anything, about the length of time that it was maintained. The Courts are likely to draw parallels with the general law of breach of the peace and it is now clear and fairly settled law that detention of an individual in order to prevent a breach of the peace must finish as soon as the opportunity for the breach of the peace has passed. I think that the Courts will take some convincing that continued containment was necessary late into the night after everyone else had gone home ...

Insofar as the HSE are concerned, yes. (And it is a matter for them whether they institute an investigation into any possible breach of H&S law).

Insofar as the Courts are concerned (other than in relation to a H&S prosecution), no.


I have commented on the use of various tactics. I do not consider the use of containment to be amongst the more dangerous. It is far more likely that a demonstrator will be killed by a baton strike to the head (it almost happened here), a blow to the head from a shield edge or by a high speed mounted police advance into a crowd (NOT as seen in the footage from last week, but as seen in footage from the middle one of the demonstrations which got no mainstream publicity).

Situation 1: No-one suffocates (or even comes close). No-one dies from any cause. No serious injuries of any sort are caused.
Situation 2: 400 people dies, many from suffocation.

Yeah mate. Almost exactly the same ...

You really don't help your argument by drawing hysterical and ridiculous parallels. If I drew parallels between what we have seen this week and, say, the major inner city disorder of the 80s (mobs running amok, vehicles being attacked at random, premises being looted ...) you'd quite rightly say I was talking bollocks.

Take a look at yourself ...

Containment could only be justified if it were necessary to control a crowd which there are reasonable grounds to suspect was likely to cause significant violence or disorder.

The location would be largely irrelevant and driven by where the need arose and where the crowd were. I suspect the bridge was used as it has two sides already contained (which makes the containment easier to activate and maintain operationally).

I have already commented that I see significant downsides of using a bridge and personally do not consider it was a wise thing to do unless there was no alternative.

I have also commented on how I think the police may have difficulty if challenged in the Courts, in justifying the length of the containment.

* Starts watching "independent" report. *

* Gives up after a couple of minutes when the "independent journalist" discounts violent acts by protestors for the third or fourth time and continually describes the police tactics as "stupid". *

I am afraid his commentary provides absolutely no confidence that his editing of his footage will be at all balanced.

 

[detective-boy]

Would you agree that kettling, given an unlucky set of not-ever-so-unlikely circumstances, has the potential to cause injuries or much, much worse to a bunch of people who cannot possibly ALL be troublemakers?

Yes.

Would you agree that dispersing a crowd intent on violence and damage has the potential to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?

Or that allowing a crowd intent on violence and damage to go exactly where it likes has the potential to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?

 

[detective-boy]

You could have used the multiquote function. Although you'd be limited to 5 rolleyes, so perhaps not.

I could.

Where my responses are to a number of posts on the same subject I try to.

But where they are to different posters on different subjects I find it confuses, rather than clarifies, the issue.

 

[audiotech]

hahahahahahaha

 

[Steel Icarus]

Yes.

Would you agree that dispersing a crowd intent on violence and damage has the potential to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?

Or that allowing a crowd intent on violence and damage to go exactly where it likes has the potential to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?

It's back to intent. Prove intent. You can't. Why shouldn't a crowd go where it likes? Arrest if there's a crime, sure. But trapping a load of people or stopping them going where they want in case...is bullshit.

 

[dylans]

Situation 1: No-one suffocates (or even comes close). No-one dies from any cause. No serious injuries of any sort are caused.
Situation 2: 400 people dies, many from suffocation.

Yeah mate. Almost exactly the same ...

You really don't help your argument by drawing hysterical and ridiculous parallels. If I drew parallels between what we have seen this week and, say, the major inner city disorder of the 80s (mobs running amok, vehicles being attacked at random, premises being looted ...) you'd quite rightly say I was talking bollocks.

Take a look at yourself ...

Would you agree that forcing up to a thousand people into an ever tightening containment on a bridge from both ends and then releasing horses into that situation has the potential to lead to tragedy?

You take a look at yourself. You have managed to piss off almost everyone on here, including me (who has spoken out in your defence on more than one occasion) with your derogatory, abusive and dismissive posts. As I said before (and conveniently ignored by you) I have never, not once abused or insulted you. Quite the opposite. I have always treated you with respect. (not least because of your kind words in the past via pm) and tried to reply only to the content of your posts.I at least expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect in return. Perhaps if you cut out the almost deranged tendency to swear and insult everyone who disagrees with you then you wouldn't be treated with the amount of hostility and derision you are at the moment. Just a thought.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Would you agree that forcing up to a thousand people into an ever tightening containment on a bridge from both ends and then releasing horses into that situation has the potential to lead to tragedy?

You take a look at yourself. You have managed to piss off almost everyone on here, including me (who has spoken out in your defence on more than one occasion) with your derogatory, abusive and dismissive posts. As I said before (and conveniently ignored by you) I have never, not once abused or insulted you. Quite the opposite. I have always treated you with respect. (not least because of your kind words in the past via pm) and tried to reply only to the content of your posts.I at least expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect in return. Perhaps if you cut out the almost deranged tendency to swear and insult everyone who disagrees with you then you wouldn't be treated with the amount of hostility and derision you are at the moment. Just a thought.

He thinks that the hostility and derision he encounters is entirely due to his having been an employee of HM Constabulary, and has hardly anything to do with his winning personality and friendly nature.

 

[scifisam]

I would have thought that the Dusiberg Love Parade disaster would be ample recent precedent for not confining large numbers of people in a small area and only letting them trickle out. That wasn't kettling as a method for containing a protest, but it employed the exact same methods, and 21 people died.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Shippy?

http://inapcache.boston.com/univers...gpicture/londonprotest_12_10/l08_26264559.jpg

in a coat?

 

[BigTom]

Would you agree that forcing up to a thousand people into an ever tightening containment on a bridge from both ends and then releasing horses into that situation has the potential to lead to tragedy?

Just to be clear, Horses were not used on the Westminster Bridge Kettle.. FS got mixed up with videos earlier - horses were used on the whitehall push (which is where FS's second video is from) and around westminster abbey, on the other side of parl. sq. but they were not used on the bridge.