Proper Tidy
Arsed
We should try. Anybody know any good police boards and a decent proxy thingy?
London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
i'm banned from ukpolice online and I didn't even swear. Take up my torch.
xes
F.O.A.D
I couldn't agree more, and on the forum I mod on, I use the approach of "if it ain't legally threatening, then let them fight it out" I know this is a much larger board, with far more complaints on, so it's not really the same thing. but it's still how I'd go about thing. (I'm a soft cunt though, don;'t like to be thought of as some kind of authoritive figure, cos I ain't)
I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues. To some extent I am a consultant and commentator on policing services and issues and there is a debate to be had. It is pointless talking to people who agree with the police perspective and I don't know many active protestors in real-life (though I know a few). It is so frustrating here in that you occasionally get a little flash of a sensible discussion and debate and then the fuckwit trolls coming flaming in and it is extinguished ...
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues.
Then stop swearing at everyone.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues. To some extent I am a consultant and commentator on policing services and issues and there is a debate to be had. It is pointless talking to people who agree with the police perspective and I don't know many active protestors in real-life (though I know a few). It is so frustrating here in that you occasionally get a little flash of a sensible discussion and debate and then the fuckwit trolls coming flaming in and it is extinguished ...
If that's what you really want, then learn to deal with it when people disagree with you. Learn to cope with being criticised and learn to admit when you're wrong about something.
xes
F.O.A.D
I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues. To some extent I am a consultant and commentator on policing services and issues and there is a debate to be had. It is pointless talking to people who agree with the police perspective and I don't know many active protestors in real-life (though I know a few). It is so frustrating here in that you occasionally get a little flash of a sensible discussion and debate and then the fuckwit trolls coming flaming in and it is extinguished ...
you have to admit that you have some responsibility in the way this pans out though. Much of the time, you're not speaking from you. You speak from a handbook of what the police would want you to say. And that can be infuriating. As no common sense is applied to that handbook. You have more than a flash of reasoned debate in you, yet you let the likes of me (and I;ll admit that I've been more than a little "untoward" towards you on more than 1 occasion) But you do bring it on yourself, dish out abuse, then go crying to teacher when you get it back. It doesn't look good. And doesn't help the discussion. Even if that discussion gets heated. It's still worthy of debate.
A lot of the problem last week stemmed from the fact that whilst the march was allowed to go through Parliament Square on it's south-east (?) corner by the bridge, it was not approved to go into Parliament Square proper and certainly not to become a static demonstration there ... hence the protest became unlawful when large numbers decided to do exactly that.
In any event, I don't think anyone (and certainly not me) would argue that in an ideal world anyone but the protestors acting unlawfully should be dealt with for that ... but there are some obvious practical issues in dealing with a few protestors intent on serious disorder who have decided to "hide" amongst a mass of protestors who are not. As they do not wear badges, and as the mass of lawful protestors do not (for the most part, though it does happen occasionally) seem willing to give them up in their own interests so that they can continue their lawful protest, it is simply impracticable for the police to only deal with the specific individuals causing trouble.
There are tactics available (such as the use of snatch squads) which can improve that ... but the deployment of snatch squads tends to be misunderstood by the majority of the crowd and they tend to be resisted ... and hence it becomes an aggressive tactic that leads to force being used on those trying to prevent them reaching thier principal targets.
Would you prefer to see tactics such as snatch squads used?
No. Like my quite specific "observation" that containment DOES have the potential for causing injury:
This is CLEAR evidence of your outright lying about what I have posted.
Apologise now.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
How is it unlawful to occupy a public area?
Clue: It isn't.
Clue: It isn't.
xes
F.O.A.D
No, you appologise. NOW
(and other emotive faces which convey my anger, ect) And one to convey my utter couldn't give a fuckedness at your stupid fucking "appologise now" bullshit demands. 
winjer
holocene death beat
I got banned from Police Oracle just for correcting some cops on public order law, literally quoting from the statute, not even my own opinion.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
unlawful gatherings are illegal under the 1986 public order act iirc
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Because with every right comes conditions attached, the extreme example being the freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
It is, in the designated area around Parliament, as per the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, 2005.
xes
F.O.A.D
Whose streets? OUR STREETS!
winjer
holocene death beat
A march doesn't become unlawful simply because it deviates from the police-mandated route, it is only an offence to organise such a march, not to participate in one. The static demonstration would be illegal if it could be proven they intended to remain static, which doesn't appear to be the case on published evidence.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There will always be a certain tension between the law and what it is right to do. Some of us are less concerned with the law than doing what is right. It's a nuance that is always lost on certain posters here.
winjer
holocene death beat
No, under the POA 1986, marches have to be notified to police, static demonstrations don't, except around Parliament.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues. To some extent I am a consultant and commentator on policing services and issues and there is a debate to be had. It is pointless talking to people who agree with the police perspective and I don't know many active protestors in real-life (though I know a few). It is so frustrating here in that you occasionally get a little flash of a sensible discussion and debate and then the fuckwit trolls coming flaming in and it is extinguished ...
Keep it up, you have some great posts that annihilate some of the stupidity put out on these boards.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Before DB flounced he again made mention of snatch squads asking "do we want them as a response" or some such? Well I remember their use well and there is little to fear. If enough people are present then the snatch squad gets cut off and beaten. It most noticeably happened during the anti apartheid demonstration in 1985/6 (?) that was in Trafalgar Square. They had to sent snatch squads in to rescue the snatch squad that got captured and kicked. What the police and their masters the politicians have got to realise is that there are many of us, we won't give in and if they up the ante, so will we. Police want to use baton rounds? Then consider what the response will be. CS gas, again, its use will not be unopposed. This ain't Greece, this population is huge compared.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
wasn't there a poa which made gatherings of people illegal?
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
I know no-one died in these protests. It was the same methods at Duisberg - people in a confined space only been let out in trickles. That was the reason that some people in the tunnel turned around (but it wasn't only people in the tunnel who died). Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up.
Don't hold your breath ...
Which is why how containment is used (especially the length of time it is used for) needs to be carefully addressed by the police. They need to (a) try and only contain those who are anticipated to be likely to cause trouble; (b) have a process in place whereby realistic filtering out of people who are clearly not is possible (from almost the outset), (c) ensure that the conditions of the containment are constantly reviewed, so that if things become dangerous / too uncomfortable they are addressed and (d) keep the containment only for as short a time as possible.
Having spoken to a couple of people during the day today (one police and two students who were there (one contained, one outside the containment) it appears that the police may have held the containment on Westminster Bridge for as long as they did whilst they arranged for footage of some of the more serious incidents to be made available so that those involved could be identified and arrested as they were filtered out. I think this could be justified in the case of serious crime (murder / GBH / arson or whatever) ... but I am not aware of anything that happened that would justify it on this occasion. If that is the reason it was held for so long it will be an interesting test case to see what the Courts make of that.
To be honest they make it impossible. Experience is that there are so many potential targets (and so little in the way of organised targetting) that it is impractical. If the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that a group was intent on violence it would also open them to attack for failing to do all that they reasonably could to protect the victims of the attacks they allowed to happen. Again we come back to the balance of rights - things are nowhere near as clear cut when you consider others apart from the demonstrators and their right to protest (and the law firmly obliges the police to consider others too).
There were random attacks on various places. There were interviews on the TV and in the papers with members of staff who were terrified for their personal safety. If an unruly mob attacks a premises it is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that one or more individuals will attack the staff, especially if they try and defend the premises instead of running away (which they would be well-advised to do).
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yep. They might have worked well at oppositional events like fas/ant-fash confrontations, or footie rucks, but not quite so well otherwise.
Whereupon they got a leathering too. In fact snatch squads are a fucking good way for uniting crowds of protesters who mught not otherwise agree on anything but the basics of what they're protesting about.
I'm sure they are bearing that all in mind. However, what we need to consider is what we reckon the tipping point will be between they holding such methods in reserve and their use of them, and being prepared and resolute when they do.
There is no "reasonable examination of police tactics, police actions and police brutality" in the absence of me and a handful of others (most of whom have long since given up posting anything which challenges the ACAB monothought clique). To suggest otherwise is simply laughable.
There is simply a highly prejudiced, anti-police rant.
Similar threads
