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

[shaman75]

I have to say, when you look at the report into the policing of the G20 protest, and it's recommendations, I can't really see any change in policing style at all. How on earth are they going to manage the Olympics?

A blueprint for wholesale reform of British policing to create a service "anchored in public consent" was unveiled today by the inquiry prompted by Scotland Yard's controversial handling of the G20 protests in London.

Denis O'Connor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, used his report to demand wide-ranging reforms and a return to an ideal of policing based on "approachability, impartiality, accountability and … minimum force".

The findings received almost unanimous support across the political spectrum. The prime minister, Gordon Brown, said the government would "take the action" needed to reassure the public that policing is fair.

The report – instigated after the Guardian revealed that a newspaper seller, Ian Tomlinson, had died after an attack by a police officer – was broader and more critical than many had expected.

O'Connor warned of a "hardening" of policing style in recent years and the erosion of the British approach to policing developed by the 19th-century prime minister Sir Robert Peel and based on consent.

He criticised the way officers were trained for the use of force, saying they wrongly believing "proportionality" means "reciprocity". Through the ranks, there was a failure to understand the law on policing protests. O'Connor said the lack of national standards meant that a high-profile area of policing had been treated as a "cinderella" subject with inconsistencies from force to force.

He called for ministers to endorse and vocally support a consent-based approach ahead of the Olympics in 2012, when British policing will be on show to the world.

"It is time now for us to put the British model back on the table. The Home Office should be concerned by this drift, because members of the public are and I am trying to react to that," he said.

"Every police initiative, every decision about equipment should be examined to see if it complies with the principle of policing by consent … we are in danger of being left with a shadow of what we had, asking ourselves: where did it go?"

Among the proposals to restore faith in policing, O'Connor called for:

• Immediate action from the home secretary, Alan Johnson, to issue guidance to all 44 police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that ensures they facilitate peaceful protest in a consistent way.

• The creation of a set of fundamental national principles on the use of force to cover all police business, emphasising "minimum use of force" at all times.

• Radical change in public order training, with an emphasis on teaching the 22,500 officers who receive basic protest training how to manage peaceful activists.

• A shakeup of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to make it transparent and accountable. He highlighted Acpo's three "domestic extremism" units, which collate information on thousands of activists and which, the Guardian revealed last month, were receiving £9m from the government.

He also said ministers should respond to privacy and human rights concerns surrounding Forward Intelligence Teams, the surveillance units that film, photograph and monitor activists at protests using spotter cards, and then store details on databases.

The prime minister acknowledged public anger over police behaviour. Speaking for the first time about Tomlinson's death, Brown said: "I know that the events at the G20 caused a great deal of anger and sadness for people when we had the casualty. It is important that policing is of the best and where mistakes are made or there are question marks they have to be answered."

Several police associations gave their support to O'Connor's findings, including Acpo, which said the report would "shape the future of public order policing". Climate Camp, the UK's largest environmental protest group, said the proposals were "a huge leap forward".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/25/police-g20-inquiry-report

 

[revlon]

Through the ranks, there was a failure to understand the law on policing protests.

fundamental

 

[skyscraper101]

in a coat?

You don't do coats?

 

[19sixtysix]

You don't do coats?

As far as I understand he doesn't do long trousers either.

And in this weather. Makes me feel chilled just thinking about it.

 

[peterkro]

Doesn't do long sleeves either.

 

[little_legs]

Oh well ... http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/702577

This is the guy who was arrested last year for writing on the pavement with a chalk.

 

[frogwoman]

As far as I understand he doesn't do long trousers either.

And in this weather. Makes me feel chilled just thinking about it.

You shouldn't wear shorts in this weather, you'll get sunburnt.

 

[moon23]

* Starts watching "independent" report. *

"Independent Journalist" = Some crusty arts student from Bristolw ith mobile phone who occasionally posts on Indymedia.

 

[DrRingDing]

Fuck off moon.

 

[DotCommunist]

don't make him not write a leaflet!

 

[8ball]

"Independent Journalist" = Some crusty arts student from Bristolw ith mobile phone who occasionally posts on Indymedia.

Ignore the haters. Remember, you've got a song.
Jupiter hasn't got one.

 

[detective-boy]

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.

You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ... on the basis of your argument "It's back to intent. Prove intent. You can't. Why shouldn't the police use containment? Ban it is there's injury caused, sure. But preventing the police using a tactic intended to prevent crime and disorder in case injury is caused ... is bullshit?

Double standards anyone ...

 

[detective-boy]

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?

Try reading the thread.

I already have.

(Not that there is any evidence that horses were "released" into the containment on the bridge ... that was a made up by some other ranter ...

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.

If you actually engaged sensibly with the discussion, read what had already been posted and sought to understand what was actually being said instead of making stuff up then I wouldn't need to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" would I? I reserve the right to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" with fuckwits, liars and idiots.

...and insult everyone who disagrees with you.

As I have said a million times, it is nothing to do with whether someone disagrees with me or not. It is always about lies and fuckwittedness - style not content. Go back and read carefully and you will see ...

 

[detective-boy]

... but it employed the exact same methods, and 21 people died.

Seeing as precisely, er, no-one died on Westminster Bridge (and no-one has died or been significantly injured as a result of any use of the containment tactic) it patently obviously wasn't "the exact same methods", was it?

(If you actually bothered to find out what the fuck you were talking about you would know that what happened there was that a large crowd heading in one direction and entering the site was suddenly stopped and turned round ... so crowds were heading in different directions in the confined tunnel).

 

[detective-boy]

Just to be clear, Horses were not used on the Westminster Bridge Kettle..

It's too late now ... as soon as it's posted on the internet everyone* (a) believes it and (b) believes that any denial is a "cover-up" ...

(* well, all the fuckwits anyway ...)

 

[TopCat]

Did you get this experience in excusing police actions including killing people on the job piggy?

 

[detective-boy]

I have to say, when you look at the report into the policing of the G20 protest, and it's recommendations, I can't really see any change in policing style at all. How on earth are they going to manage the Olympics?

They did change.

The first protest was policed in a far more relaxed way ... and Millbank happened.

Partly that was due to police fuck-up. Primarily it was due to some people within the crowd demonstrating that protestors today simply cannot be trusted to demonstrate peacefully.

Sadly (and largely because the target was the fucking Tory scum headquarters) the politicians and the media went large on slagging the police off for "losing control" and the country-bumpkin prick of a Commissioner came out to say that it was an "embarassment" and that "the game has changed" ... and so the pendulum swung instantly back to robust and interventionist G20 tactics.

I have been pushing the same line in the media stuff I have done as I have been posting here: we (society) needs to grow up and decide what we want from protest. If we want relative freedo to do so then we need to grow up and realise that that will involve some smashed windows, graffiti and other minor crime and disorder because there will always be some protestors who go a bit daft and the police, if they are using hands-off tactics, will lose "control" from time to time. If, on the other hand (and as the media and the politicians seem to think), we want protest but no smashed windows, graffiti, etc. and the police to remain in total contrtol at all times then we will have to expect them using the sort of preemptive containment and other tactics we have seen.

There are unavoidable dilemmas in the policing of protest - protestors have the right to do so ... but (and equally) those who disagree with them, or who have no particular view, have a right to go about their business unmolested. The police have to strike a balance. The debate about where that balance lies, and what is acceptable and not acceptable (in both directions) needs to be had in public, in the media. It hasn't happened and the media have shown absolutely no interest in pursuing it.

In dealing with individual incidents (like Sgt Smellie; Ian Tomlinson; Jody McIntyre, Alfie Meadows, etc.) is dealing with the symptoms and will change nothing. We need to deal with the cause. The prevention of minor crime and disorder is simply not worth the death of a protestor. The protection of the freedom to protest is simply not worth the death of a police officer or other perdson (such as someone in a randomly attacked and ransacked Waterstones or whatever). Either (or both) of these things could happen at any stage ... and could have happened already but for fate.

 

[detective-boy]

Did you get this experience in excusing police actions including killing people on the job piggy?

* Waits for mods to come and tell TopCat to pack in the content-free abuse *

* Doesn't hold breath *

* Gets threatened with a ban by mods, for derailing threads by having the temerity to challenge trolling by members of The Collective ... *

(You heard it here first ...)

 

[revlon]

You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ... on the basis of your argument "It's back to intent. Prove intent. You can't. Why shouldn't the police use containment? Ban it is there's injury caused, sure. But preventing the police using a tactic intended to prevent crime and disorder in case injury is caused ... is bullshit?

Double standards anyone ...

ironically someone who has been arrested on suspicion of actually comitting a criminal offence has more rights than a protestor contained in the kettle for over 8 hours - toilet facilities, a degree of warmth and semblance of comfort, at least one hot meal, access to solicitors and a copy of pace to read [and depending which nick you're in, free from arbitrary and intermittent physical beatings].

Kettling is both a form collective punsihment and a deterrent.

In fact from personal experience the punishment ends when the arrest starts and the the legal process takes over.

 

[detective-boy]

Kettling is both a form collective punsihment and a deterrent.

If it is intended as either of those it would be illegal (assuming you mean a deterrent to lawful protest - it acting as a deterrent to unlawful protest would be a lawful intent).

It is intended to be a preventative measure to prevent crime and disorder. It is inevitable that a lawful containment will be perceived as a collective punishment and as a deterrent ... but if it is lawful the fact that it is perceived by people in that way will not automatically render it unlawful. And lots of other things could be argued to be perceived as "collective punishments" and "deterrents" too.

The Courts will decide whether or not they are satisfied that this particular one was (they have already accepted that containment is lawful in principle). I have already commented that I think there will be some difficulty in persuading them that the length of this particular containment was justifiable.

 

[xes]

* Waits for mods to come and tell TopCat to pack in the content-free abuse *

* Doesn't hold breath *

* Gets threatened with a ban by mods, for derailing threads by having the temerity to challenge trolling by members of The Collective ... *

(You heard it here first ...)

save the drama for yo' mamma

 

[detective-boy]

save the drama for yo' mamma

Merely an observation ...

 

[rekil]

Garment workers strike in Bangladesh last week. 3 killed.

Can't see any snooker balls here sadly. The search continues.

 

[magneze]

Why do you bother d-b?

 

[revlon]

If it is intended as either of those it would be illegal (assuming you mean a deterrent to lawful protest - it acting as a deterrent to unlawful protest would be a lawful intent).

It is intended to be a preventative measure to prevent crime and disorder. It is inevitable that a lawful containment will be perceived as a collective punishment and as a deterrent ... but if it is lawful the fact that it is perceived by people in that way will not automatically render it unlawful. And lots of other things could be argued to be perceived as "collective punishments" and "deterrents" too.

The Courts will decide whether or not they are satisfied that this particular one was (they have already accepted that containment is lawful in principle). I have already commented that I think there will be some difficulty in persuading them that the length of this particular containment was justifiable.

and this is the problem. The demonstration was entirely lawful, it wasn't an unlawful protest. If people were committing criminal acts those individuals would be acting unlawfully, the protest would remain entirely lawful.

We know their are already provisions in place "to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community", that the police can impose - this would be their legal duty rather than simply an operational one.

There are legal sanctions in place, kettling is simply a police tactic.

 

[xes]

Merely an observation ...

like your "observation" that containment has no potential for injury?

 

[TopCat]

* Waits for mods to come and tell TopCat to pack in the content-free abuse *

* Doesn't hold breath *

* Gets threatened with a ban by mods, for derailing threads by having the temerity to challenge trolling by members of The Collective ... *

(You heard it here first ...)

Fuck off fat piggy...

 

[editor]

* Waits for mods to come and tell TopCat to pack in the content-free abuse *

* Doesn't hold breath *

* Gets threatened with a ban by mods, for derailing threads by having the temerity to challenge trolling by members of The Collective ... *

(You heard it here first ...)

Here's what is so fucking annoying about you - you regularly trash threads by throwing around unwarranted and over the top personal abuse, and then when someone gives you some back, you peddle out the persecution complex and lose all sympathy from the mods.

Seeing as you were too busy whining about how unfair the mods were to report this post, I've only just seen it.

I think I can speak for all of the mods when I say we're utterly fed up with your near-hysterical over-reaction to posts. You seem to take general points as a personal affront, and post up some quite incredibly patronising or insulting material in return.

The sad thing is that in amongst all the bile and the ranting, your sensible posts are often much appreciated by many posters, but you really have to learn to calm the fuck down because each time you start off, the downward spiral begins and I'm fed up seeing important threads trashed this way.

Equally, the kind of childish abuse thrown about by others here is equally unacceptable ("piggy" is particularly pathetic) so you all have to collectively decide if you want to have a debate at all, or if you just want to throw around endless insults. If it's the latter, then I'm afraid you can expect bans to follow and NO ONE will be exempt from that.

There is a very important discussion to be had here. All of the contributors have interesting points to make but if all the insults, slurs and sweary stuff continues to pile on, there's no point for this thread to exist any more - and you've all played a part in fucking it up.

So it's up to you. If I come back and find the insults are still flying, or people are trying to engage me with smart arse points then I'm just going to hit the ban button because I REALLY can't be fucked with any more of this.

Last chance.

 

[BigTom]

It's too late now ... as soon as it's posted on the internet everyone* (a) believes it and (b) believes that any denial is a "cover-up" ...

(* well, all the fuckwits anyway ...)

Yeah, but if I say it people will believe me because they know I'm not an apologist for the police.

I have been pushing the same line in the media stuff I have done as I have been posting here: we (society) needs to grow up and decide what we want from protest. If we want relative freedo to do so then we need to grow up and realise that that will involve some smashed windows, graffiti and other minor crime and disorder because there will always be some protestors who go a bit daft and the police, if they are using hands-off tactics, will lose "control" from time to time. If, on the other hand (and as the media and the politicians seem to think), we want protest but no smashed windows, graffiti, etc. and the police to remain in total contrtol at all times then we will have to expect them using the sort of preemptive containment and other tactics we have seen.

I actually agree with a lot of this, but what it fails to recognise is that pre-emptive containment actually leads to more violence/property damage as people are (potentially illegally) and definitely uncomfortably contained - and most of them are held for no reason other than the belief that they might have an intention to do something..
I don't have an answer to this, except that I think like you seem to that some broken windows are acceptable in the context of freedom to protest. I'd be inclined towards police protecting high profile targets but otherwise acting reactively to trouble and letting demonstrators wander as they please as a compromise. Obv. there are alot of high profile targets that make such a thing at least difficult for police.

In dealing with individual incidents (like Sgt Smellie; Ian Tomlinson; Jody McIntyre, Alfie Meadows, etc.) is dealing with the symptoms and will change nothing. We need to deal with the cause. The prevention of minor crime and disorder is simply not worth the death of a protestor. The protection of the freedom to protest is simply not worth the death of a police officer or other perdson (such as someone in a randomly attacked and ransacked Waterstones or whatever). Either (or both) of these things could happen at any stage ... and could have happened already but for fate.

Bit in bold - are you referring to some actual incident that has happened in the past or is this just hyperbolic nonsense?

 

[dylans]

If you actually engaged sensibly with the discussion, read what had already been posted and sought to understand what was actually being said instead of making stuff up then I wouldn't need to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" would I? I reserve the right to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" with fuckwits, liars and idiots.
.

Ok so in your opinion, I and almost every other poster who has engaged in a discussion with you is a "fuckwit, liar and an idiot." If you have such a low opinion of posters here it begs the question why you post here at all? I mean seriously, If I was a member of discussion board and I held its members in such contempt I think I would seriously consider leaving and finding a site where I had a better opinion of its members.

On a personal level. I am genuinely sorry you have such a low opinion of me, not least because I used to respect you. The pm conversation we had a while ago was very valuable and touching to me and you came across as a compassionate and decent person. I liked that guy. Your posts on here could be from a different person. Oh well, seeing this is your opinion of me. I think it best that I no longer engage in discussion with you. Please do the same with my posts.