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

[detective-boy]

Your abusive attacks on me where COMPLETELY unprovoked and unilateral.

Which ones?

 

[detective-boy]

fuck off.

Thank you for your well thought through alternative approach to the policing of dissent. I will make sure that it is passed on to HMIC for consideration ...

 

[detective-boy]

You have called me all sorts of names, most recently "thick cunt" -

Where?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Where?

Do a search for your username and 'cunt'. Take your time.

 

[detective-boy]

Take their beating like a man.

So you support the crowd attacking the police ... and certainly them using excessive and specific violence to counter the minimal force but you do not expect the police to resist that use of force in their own defence, the defence of others or in the prevention of crime.

Please justify your position. Or admit that you actually don't have one that would stand scrutiny by a three-year old ...

 

[dylans]

Which ones?

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.

.
Now please explain where I have ever "started it" in order to deserve being called a fuckwit, a liar and an idiot.

 

[detective-boy]

.

That's a statement of my position.

It is not the example of my abusing you that you take issue with.

 

[Crispy]

Where?

I'm talking about posters on a fucking bulletin board, none of whom are fucking police.

You thick cunt.

There

 

[dylans]

That's a statement of my position.

It is not the example of my abusing you that you take issue with.

Bullshit. The post is aimed at me. It starts "if YOU HAD ENGAGED SENSIBLY i WOULDN'T NEED TO BE DEROGATORY ABUSIVE AND DISMISSIVE".

So presumably you felt that I hadn't engaged "sensibly " and was therefore a legitimate target for your scattergun abuse.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you think that it is right to break the law then, as many posters other than me have pointed out, don't whinge when the police try to stop you (as that is their job and, in fact, they have a duty to do so and would be committing a criminal offence themselves if they did not do all that is reasonably possible to do so).

What is really pathetic is that you demand the right to break the law because it is "right" ... AND demand the right not to be stopped by the police from doing so ...

You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you really think that it is necessary to break the law in the pursuit of some right, grow some balls and stand up and be counted for taking the action you did and the consequences which follow.

See. You don't have the first clue what I am getting at, do you. In your head 'lawful' is synonymous with 'right'. You simply cannot countenance any complication of such a system. I do not 'demand the right' to break the law. Doesn't make the coppers who enforce shit laws any less culpable for their actions, though. Fuck you and anyone else who commits immoral acts in the name of 'duty'. Moral cowards the lot of you.

 

[detective-boy]

There

I guaranteed that "... you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things".

In that case the response was brought about by the claim that I was "the police" and thus different rules applied to me.

In retrospect it was too strong and I apologise. (I really am trying to avoid using the c*** word ...)

 

[detective-boy]

Bullshit. The post is aimed at me. It starts "if YOU HAD ENGAGED SENSIBLY i WOULDN'T NEED TO BE DEROGATORY ABUSIVE AND DISMISSIVE".

So presumably you felt that I hadn't engaged "sensibly " and was therefore a legitimate target for your scattergun abuse.

It was not intended to be addressed to you personally but was a general comment about posters generally.

I apologise if my wording misled you.

 

[dylans]

It was not intended to be addressed to you personally but was a general comment about posters generally.

I apologise if my wording misled you.

Thank you

 

[detective-boy]

See. You don't have the first clue what I am getting at, do you.

I don't.

Of course I understand the difference between something being "right" and something being "lawful". And I acknowledge that sometimes it is necessary to break the "law" in the pursuit of a greater "right" (and I have argued that, as a society, we should tolerate some degree of law-breaking as acceptable as the inevitable consequence of having a reasonable degree of freecdom to protest) ... but I haven't got the faintest idea what you are arguing should happen in the context of these protests - what the protestors should or should not do, what the police should or should not do in response.

I do not 'demand the right' to break the law. Doesn't make the coppers who enforce shit laws any less culpable for their actions, though. Fuck you and anyone else who commits immoral acts in the name of 'duty'. Moral cowards the lot of you.

Those sentences make absolutely no sense. If you do not demand the right the break the law what law are the coppers enforcing which makes you so cross?

 

[Streathamite]

"Take our word for it" isn't sufficient and never has been sufficient. If a protest is to be banned then the police must supply the evidence on which they make the request. And the decision is subject to judicial review if the protest organisers wish to challenge a decision to restrict or ban it.

You are arguing against something that simply isn't the case.

no I am NOT doing that - not at all. I'm simply challenging the initially vague, woolly term you gave of 'substantial grounds' as justification for pre-emptive action, and asking for clarification and amplification of that, simply because I think nothing less than a very rigorous submission by the police will do.
That clarification you have begun to give. Either way, it isn't 'arguing against', or for, anything - as such, here you are simply doing the twisting and misrepresenting you (sometimes rightly) accuse others of.

 

[sherpa]

I guaranteed that "... you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things".

In that case the response was brought about by the claim that I was "the police" and thus different rules applied to me.

In retrospect it was too strong and I apologise. (I really am trying to avoid using the c*** word ...)

I was actually trying to make a point, and was very open about being somewhat disingenuous in my interpretation of your post; something you wilfully chose to ignore, preferring to insult me. You would benefit from taking a few deep breaths inbetween reading and making posts. Your cortisol levels must be all over the shop.

Thank you for your apology.

 

[detective-boy]

no I am NOT doing that - not at all. I'm simply challenging the initially vague, woolly term you gave of 'substantial grounds' as justification for pre-emptive action, and asking for clarification and amplification of that, simply because I think nothing less than a very rigorous submission by the police will do.

And that is what happens. The actual evidence and information gathered in support of any such application varies from case to case but it typically includes: experience of previous protests by the same group, information gathered from open sources (e.g. media, social networking, etc.), statements by any identifiable members / organisers of the protests; results of surveillance; information from Human Intelligence Sources; the records of any individuals known / believed to be likely to participate, likely reaction from any opposition faction (if appropriate), etc.

The degree of proof needed to establish "reasonable grounds to suspect" or "reasonable grounds to believe" (depending on the provision) is well established as those concepts are widely encountered throughout the criminal law. Both are well short of "proof beyond reasonable doubt"; reasonable grounds to believe is a little short of "proof on the balance of probabilities" (though there is frequently sufficient evidence and information gathered to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, it will kick off if it goes ahead); reasonable grounds to suspect is someway beyond that. The important thing is that ALL the information and evidence MUST be objective - i.e. the police MUST be able to show / tell it to someone else to justify their application.

The rarity of the police banning a protest, or applying any hugely detrimental conditions, should confirm to you that it is not something done easily or capriciously, on the basis of the police saying "take our word for it".

 

[detective-boy]

Your cortisol levels must be all over the shop.

Everyone says that ... but they're not. "Better out than in" could be my motto about frustration - I show it too much, I don't let save it up inside at all! And I think you were unfortunate in that your post followed a number of other frustrating ones from other posters ... so there was a touch of camel's back about it ...

 

[Pickman's model]

Everyone says that ... but they're not. "Better out than in" could be my motto about frustration - I show it too much, I don't let save it up inside at all! And I think you were unfortunate in that your post followed a number of other frustrating ones from other posters ... so there was a touch of camel's back about it ...

you've got the hump?

 

[winjer]

wasn't there a poa which made gatherings of people illegal?

CJPOA 1994 (aka the CJB) has powers that can make gatherings on private land illegal - what it calls 'trespassory assemblies'.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2156203&ActiveTextDocId=2156304

 

[Blagsta]

CJPOA 1994 (aka the CJB) has powers that can make gatherings on private land illegal - what it calls 'trespassory assemblies'.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2156203&ActiveTextDocId=2156304

aahhhh, cheers

 

[TopCat]

If you do not demand the right the break the law what law are the coppers enforcing which makes you so cross?

The "I don't like your face" ACT <time immemorial > Combined with the "Protect the Rich at all costs" ACT.

 

[shaman75]

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.

I haven't read further than this post yet, but I'm grateful for the response.

I agree. Millbank set the scene for the rest of the protests and a much harder line was taken.

But all I see is a swift return to the methods used at the G20 protests and an escalation in violence from either side.

So I question what has changed. I understand police have generally been a bit more hands off since the G20 events, but in terms of these protests, we seem to be back to square one.

 

[TopCat]

. I understand police have generally been a bit more hands off since the G20 events?

Why do you understand that?

 

[DotCommunist]

Need another freddy 'fuck up' patel to mismanage the next death-by-copper.

 

[shaman75]

Why do you understand that?

dunno really. watching the hands off approach to the climate camp last year. similar with the democracy camp and the tamil protest, all of which looked to be given a bit more toleration than i saw at the G20 one.

just my impression that they'd backed off a bit and had a rethink about using 'kettling' so quickly and rigidly after that pr disaster.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Take their beating like a man.

I think that when he asked "what do you suggest the police do?", he meant that you should suggest something within the realms of reality, rather than seeking the impossible.

 

[ViolentPanda]

See. You don't have the first clue what I am getting at, do you. In your head 'lawful' is synonymous with 'right'. You simply cannot countenance any complication of such a system. I do not 'demand the right' to break the law. Doesn't make the coppers who enforce shit laws any less culpable for their actions, though. Fuck you and anyone else who commits immoral acts in the name of 'duty'. Moral cowards the lot of you.

it also misses the point that laws aren't always well-made, and that sometimes the best way to expose that is to test the law.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

it also misses the point that laws aren't always well-made, and that sometimes the best way to expose that is to test the law.

Shirley, you're not suggesting some law is rushed, ill-thought-through and often factually illegal i.e. the recent immigration cap? how do we deal with such abuse?

oh, i know, we'll abolish the scheme that allows ordinary citizens the ability to test the law........

bye bye legal aid.....

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I guaranteed that "... you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things".

In that case the response was brought about by the claim that I was "the police" and thus different rules applied to me.

In retrospect it was too strong and I apologise. (I really am trying to avoid using the c*** word ...)

So why did you call me a fucking liar when you had simply misunderstood my post (which was about your attitude to the judiciary not capital punishment)?

This is another of your claimed 'facts'.

Louis MacNeice