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

[BigTom]

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.

Yeah but kettling as currently used consistently fails to do any of that - (a) they contain based on an area rather than people ie: they decide right we are going to kettle at this location (or at least be prepared for it) - I know not being in the police force I can't say this for sure but it certainly looks that way to me.
(b) fails because whenever you try to leave a kettle you are told by officers they won't let you go, it's they orders they have - no-one leaves. I've seen children/parents, teenagers and a heavily pregnant woman refused exit from kettles in the past (mayday protests that I was actually witness to + dec 9th report from friends).
(c) Well tbf I can't say what happens on the police side, but how many hours will you make a large group of people go without access to toilet facilities before things get too uncomfortable?
(d) is far too loose, who decides what as short a time as possible is? What are the conditions set for what means you still need to hold people and what allows you to let them out, how many do you let out at a time - because the usual practice of the walk of shame means that it takes fucking hours to get out even when they do start letting people go. I understand that they don't want to let protesters re-congregate but it's a joke really, no information given to front line officers or they have info but they refuse to pass it to people who talk to them to find out what is going on .. this to me feels like a deliberate tactic to wind up the crowd tbh.

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.

Yeah, if that's the case it's a fucking joke. The only serious offenses that I know of to take place were by the police on Alfie Meadows (iirc he was in parl. sq.) .. there was damage to property but the "worst" of it - the attacks on the treasury - only happened later on in the evening after the police had pushed up whitehall to retake their vans.. very shortly after that people started trying to break the windows on the treasury.. and there had been a fair few bits of grafitti saying "this is the treasury" applied to the building during the day, yet no-one attacked it until late on, and directly after an action by the police which wound up the crowd.
I don't know how long they would have been on the bridge if the crowd hadn't pushed the police lines back and demonstrated that they were willing to push forward, the police started letting people go in groups after this started happening (perspective from the crowd obviously).

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).

I view most of this as tactics anyway, the police are the dogs of the state when it come to demos, they are going to try to stop me from doing whatever and I actually think that's fair enough, it's the rules of the game. It's up to me to come up with tactics that defeat those the police use.
Part of the game is about the limited democratic means that are possibly to curb the tactics that the police can deploy, but there's always going to be a different tactic to come in it's place. Part of it is about what's done on the streets.

That said, when the police (or if it happened, the protesters) seriously injured or killed someone (esp. someone innocent eg: Ian Tomlinson) then the above sounds fucking heartless, and my attitude towards things tends to change.

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).

Yeah someone else said about it as well.. I didn't hear of those attacks, imo I'd be shocked if any individuals attacked the staff (unless the staff did try to defend the premises with violence, at which point it becomes self-defence for the protesters). I do recognise that it is not beyond the realms of possibility but I still think it's hyperbolic to suggest it might happen.. I also remember from one of the mayday's happening to be by a McD's branch when it was attacked by some people, and there were no staff members at the counter (or I was told in the kitchens) - presumed they all got taken upstairs into a staff room as the march approached - but the next day the media was all talking about terrified staff members at the counter as the windows were attacked and such things, so I am naturally skeptical of such reports of this kind of stuff - someone independant has posted here about the tescos staff though so I'm not questioning this one, just want you to understand that my skepticism is based on first hand experience of things being twisted by those who want to portray protesters in the worst possible light.

 

[detective-boy]

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.

I agree entirely - that is exactly what I have been posting since the day after Millbank and the carrot-crunching fool's "The game has changed" pronouncement ...

 

[detective-boy]

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.

Your impression is absolutely right. The briefings given have changed significantly - any officer engaged on the whole series will tell you (and the few idiots who like a fight will bemoan the fact ...)

 

[detective-boy]

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)?

I read it again. It does not bear the meaning you claim it has.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Mate of mine wrote this about the 09/12/10 demo:

I arrived late to the demonstration (owing to the lack of a student union coach. Cardiff Student union shamefully failed to mobilise effectively for it and instead took a 15 seater minibus) and only just managed to catch up with the Youth Fight For Jobs contingent on the march. We marched past up to Trafalgar Square chanting and singing. The atmosphere was brilliant. People were friendly, joking and laughing despite the cold. There were a few reports of minor clashes with the police in the square before we arrived but I saw none of it. As we marched in to Trafalgar the police lined up on our left with the mounted police forming behind them. The demonstration closed ranks to avoid being separated and carried on.



When we reached parliament square there was a lot of confusion. People were claiming that we were being kettled and small groups of people rushing here and there. It took a lot of discipline on the part of the leading comrades to maintain the cohesive contingent and despite my protests at the time of wanting to satisfy curiosity I think they did a brilliant job. We even saw group of about 20 Anarchists with hard hats and shields marching past at one point (though where these people where when the demonstration really needed defending I have no idea). Eventually something must have happened because the march moved on and proceeded to fill up the parliament square though not without mounted officers of the Metropolitan Police ploughing through the crowd at various intervals. Youth Fight For Jobs contingent found an area and began a rally with Speakers from Socialist Party, Youth Fight For Education and various local and non local schools and colleges not to mention representatives from the RMT. A brilliant time was had by all. The rally was interrupted as a wave of people charged past in to the police line blocking one of the exits to the square. The contingent remobilised, gathered together and discussed what we should do. Should we leave now or stay. Several people managed to leave but the South Wales Socialist Party group (which I was a part of) marching with Youth Fight For Jobs was not among them as were various other comrades from up and down the country. We spent about an hour being directed to different exits by different police lines always being told that the other one was where you’d be let out. At about 4pm the temperature began to drop dramatically and the group (now consisting of about 15 of us) decided to go and wait by one of the exits we’d been told would open. After another half hour or 45 minutes of waiting, the crowd as a whole pushed forward breaking the police line, at which point the police agreed to allow people to leave in groups. We had assumed that was the end of our part in the day’s events. We were very wrong.



About 120 yards up the road, the police reformed now armed with truncheons and carrying shields with 8 to 12 mounted officers behind them. We were then informed that the first kettle line had stopped letting people through and everyone realised that we were going to be baton charged. I was involved along with a group of about 400 people in building some form of barricade in the hope that the mounted police might be stopped. We were using the metal fences to hand but they were only chest height and we didn’t have enough of them to build a second layer that might have helped more. However, despite these short comings the barricades did certainly hold up the mounted officer’s ability to get to us. We held them off for about an hour or so before they finally pushed us back in to the first kettle. In the hand to hand fighting there were obviously injuries on both sides. At least 2 mounted policemen were pulled off their horses. The media have called it a riot. It was more like being in a battle. People were shouting to each other and defending complete strangers from a brutal unprovoked attack by riot police and Mounties.



By 6.25 pm we had been pushed back to the first kettle line at the entrance to the square and I was part of a group that had been cut off from the rest along one side of the road. After another 45 minutes of waiting, during which I watched the mounted police charge the main group another 3 or four times and the riot squads baton people indiscriminately (I saw one girl hit who had turned to help her friend up to avoid her being trampled), our group was slowly allowed out in groups of 20/30 at a time.



People were screaming for their friends still trapped in the kettle and the police were pushing people over who tried to remain to meet them. As we reached the next kettle line again everyone’s heart sank. Luckily though these coppers (possibly by virtue of the fact they had no riot gear and had a small crowd pressing them from the other side) seemed in no mood to fight and allowed us to pass. We were greeted by cheers from the crowd on the other side an people began to try to gather up there groups for the journey home after another 30 minutes or so we had got everyone we knew together and left to avoid the possibility of being kettled again (which apparently happened later to one group along Westminster bridge).

So, let out of one kettle after several hours only to find that they'd been intentionally let out to be baton charged by another line of coppers, followed by mounted police charging them and 'hand to hand fighting'. Bad eggs, clearly. Just bad eggs.

 

[detective-boy]

Yeah but kettling as currently used consistently fails to do any of that

I know. That is why I entirely accept that changes in how it is used need to be made. I have never had any issue with changes to how it is used. I have expressed these concerns since before most others (and was the first commentator in the broadcast media to do so so far as I am aware).

(d) is far too loose, who decides what as short a time as possible is?

It is impossible to be tight - there are an infinite number of possible situations. "Reasonable grounds to believe" it to be necessary would be a well-established legal evidential test that the police should be held to.

What are the conditions set for what means you still need to hold people and what allows you to let them out, how many do you let out at a time - because the usual practice of the walk of shame means that it takes fucking hours to get out even when they do start letting people go.

I am not at all sure that the same means of releasing a containment can be justified in every case. Sometimes there would be no reason why the police could not simply take the cordons away and let everyone go at once. ANY tactic MUST be applied thoughtfully and specifically to the particular circumstances prevailing at the time.

no information given to front line officers or they have info but they refuse to pass it to people who talk to them to find out what is going on .. this to me feels like a deliberate tactic to wind up the crowd tbh.

It isn't. It's a throwback to the days of limited radio communication. Even as recently as the mid-90s PCs on serials did NOT have radios - just Sgts and above and specialist units. This was because there were so few channels available. That is now not the case and there is a huge amount more potential for communication with individual officers, allocation of a dedicated channel to a particular part of a protest (e.g. all officers on a particular containment) without interfering with other communication. This needs to be addressed and FULL advantage of what communication is now available needs to be taken. Whilst it is entirely reasonable for an individual oficer not to know the bigger picture when the tactic is first used, as soon as things have settled for a while it is entirely reasonable to expect them all to know what is happening, what is expected to happen, etc. (There are other issues with communication with the crowd too - advantage is not taken of PA systems now available on all vehicles to communicate with large numbers of people - I have commented on this previously).

.. there was damage to property but the "worst" of it - the attacks on the treasury - only happened later on in the evening after the police had pushed up whitehall to retake their vans.. very shortly after that people started trying to break the windows on the treasury..

I wouldn't argue that that was anywhere near serious enough to merit the retention of a containment for any signifuicant period of time to see if the offenders could be identified.

That said, when the police (or if it happened, the protesters) seriously injured or killed someone (esp. someone innocent eg: Ian Tomlinson) then the above sounds fucking heartless, and my attitude towards things tends to change.

The police have an absolute, legal obligation to ensure that this does not happen. Protestors need to acknowledge that the police have a right to curtail violence, etc. by protestors to prevent this happening (e.g. the looting of shops and offices, terrorising staff, cannot be tolerated under any circumstances). They also need to acknowledge they have an obligation themselves, albeit not a legal one, or one as strong as that of the police, to ensure that it does not.

(unless the staff did try to defend the premises with violence, at which point it becomes self-defence for the protesters).

No, it most definitely does not. Either in law or in common sense. If you are attacked going about your lawful business you are entirely able to look to the law of self-defence to defend yourself or your property (or another). You are entitled to use "reasonable and necessary" force to do so. Any response to a lawful use of force cannot be characterised as "self-defence" by the person committing the crime, only a response to an excessive, and thus unlawful, use of force could / should be.

...so I am naturally skeptical of such reports of this kind of stuff - someone independant has posted here about the tescos staff though so I'm not questioning this one, just want you to understand that my skepticism is based on first hand experience of things being twisted by those who want to portray protesters in the worst possible light.

There would be nothing to be sceptical about if "protestors" (and I doubt if all / most of them actually were) didn't commit out and out crime entirely unconnected with the purpose of the protest.

 

[detective-boy]

So, let out of one kettle after several hours only to find that they'd been intentionally let out to be baton charged by another line of coppers, followed by mounted police charging them and 'hand to hand fighting'. Bad eggs, clearly. Just bad eggs.

If that is what happened, and I have no reason to suspect it wasn't, then it should not have done. But I will put my mortgage on the fact that the reason is poor communication / coordination by senior commanders, and different units not knowing what others are doing (or possibly things changing quickly after one decision was made, meaning that something else had to be done and could be justified), rather than individual "bad egg" officers deciding to just baton and contain people on their own decision ...

It needs to be addressed. It does not help ensure that it was by claiming that the problem is with individual officers actually using the tactic rather than senior officers deploying them to do so.

 

[Proper Tidy]

So why don't these officers say, no, actually sarge, I'm not going to hit kids with sticks or keep them kettled in freezing temperatures or chase them on horseback? Lad who wrote that is seventeen btw.

 

[BigTom]

I have no issue with what you've said on most of the post so I've not replied to those bits.. I see it differently as I'm looking at it from a different perspective but what you say is reasonable from the police point of view.

It isn't [designed to wind up the crowd]. It's a throwback to the days of limited radio communication. Even as recently as the mid-90s PCs on serials did NOT have radios - just Sgts and above and specialist units. This was because there were so few channels available. That is now not the case and there is a huge amount more potential for communication with individual officers, allocation of a dedicated channel to a particular part of a protest (e.g. all officers on a particular containment) without interfering with other communication. This needs to be addressed and FULL advantage of what communication is now available needs to be taken. Whilst it is entirely reasonable for an individual oficer not to know the bigger picture when the tactic is first used, as soon as things have settled for a while it is entirely reasonable to expect them all to know what is happening, what is expected to happen, etc. (There are other issues with communication with the crowd too - advantage is not taken of PA systems now available on all vehicles to communicate with large numbers of people - I have commented on this previously).

I'm glad you see this needs to be addressed, in an age where the protesters are using smartphones and twitter to enable mass communication amongst the crowd it's difficult to understand why the police, who are setup to communicate with radios and a command structure fail to be able to do this.. this was a problem 10 years ago, and it's still a problem now. It's always going to feel like a deliberate wind up when it's so obviously solvable in a technical sense - and it really does wind people up.

The police have an absolute, legal obligation to ensure that [attacks on shops etc] does not happen. Protestors need to acknowledge that the police have a right to curtail violence, etc. by protestors to prevent this happening (e.g. the looting of shops and offices, terrorising staff, cannot be tolerated under any circumstances). They also need to acknowledge they have an obligation themselves, albeit not a legal one, or one as strong as that of the police, to ensure that it does not.

looting of shops and offices, meh.. terrorising staff I agree with, working class staff members and even the mid-level bosses are not, nor ever should be, a target and should not be tolerated.. I fully aknowledge the police have a duty to prevent any destruction of privately owned property, we both agree that there should be a limited response to this in terms of the use of violence against people..

No, it most definitely does not. Either in law or in common sense. If you are attacked going about your lawful business you are entirely able to look to the law of self-defence to defend yourself or your property (or another). You are entitled to use "reasonable and necessary" force to do so. Any response to a lawful use of force cannot be characterised as "self-defence" by the person committing the crime, only a response to an excessive, and thus unlawful, use of force could / should be.

Not sure you understand why I've said it would be self-defence.. If I was smashing a window and a staff member decided to take it upon themselves to physically attack me to try to stop me from doing so, then I would regard it as self-defence to use violence against them to defend myself. Maybe it's not the case legally but psychologically and practically it is imo. [this is hypothetical obv. I'm not likely to be attacking windows and I can't believe that I would attack a staff member if they did try to stop me, I'd be talking to them trying to get them to think about why they are defending the property of those who exploit them, why they are putting their own person at risk etc..]

There would be nothing to be sceptical about if "protestors" (and I doubt if all / most of them actually were) didn't commit out and out crime entirely unconnected with the purpose of the protest.

Rubbsih. The police/state will always try to put out through the media the story they want to tell, and that will always be likely to contain smears and lies about the protesters that they want to paint in a particular light. My skepticism arises from witnessing lies being told about an attack on a target (McD's) that was very definitely connected with the purpose of the protest (anti-capitalism/anti-globalisation).

 

[WWWeed]

So why don't these officers say, no, actually sarge, I'm not going to hit kids with sticks or keep them kettled in freezing temperatures or chase them on horseback? Lad who wrote that is seventeen btw.

because that's questioning authority and is not allowed.

I've always said the police are just like computers or robots - they just follow instructions without question.....

 

[DotCommunist]

robots don't generally look for opportunities to be on the mump though

 

[8ball]

I guess things haven't changed too much since Victorian times where the point of police training was to make the trainee into:
‘a machine, moving, thinking and speaking only as his instruction book directs… Stiff, calm and inexorable, an institution rather than a man’

Not sure about the 'calm' bit.

 

[shaman75]

I went to the protest on 24th. Stood outside the kettle for a bit in Whitehall, wandered around to the other side, went back. I'd taken some pics and had to head off.

Half way up Whitehall, I'm confronted by a line of cops sweeping up all and sundry right down the road, including people leaving the area... I asked if I could pass and was blanked, so I legged it over fences with a few 100 kids. Good move imo. Couldn't really see the logic in that?

I went again on 30th Nov. After touring the city, videoing the events, we got back to Traf Sq and I again stood back and watched the kettle lines form up. Weirdly, later on, they were letting people out near Charing X, so I went into the kettle to leave, it being the quickest way to get to the station. But there were no trains. I walked back round to The Mall exit. Police actually seemed to encourage me to go in, but I held back. Within 15-20 minutes, they'd sealed the kettle again... I'm sure they wouldn't have let me out again even if they'd watched me go in.

Nobody seems to have any sort of coherent plan at these things.

 

[Pickman's model]

I went to the protest on 24th. Stood outside the kettle for a bit in Whitehall, wandered around to the other side, went back. I'd taken some pics and had to head off.

Half way up Whitehall, I'm confronted by a line of cops sweeping up all and sundry right down the road, including people leaving the area... I asked if I could pass and was blanked, so I legged it over fences with a few 100 kids. Good move imo. Couldn't really see the logic in that?

I went again on 30th Nov. After touring the city, videoing the events, we got back to Traf Sq and I again stood back and watched the kettle lines form up. Weirdly, later on, they were letting people out near Charing X, so I went into the kettle to leave, it being the quickest way to get to the station. But there were no trains. I walked back round to The Mall exit. Police actually seemed to encourage me to go in, but I held back. Within 15-20 minutes, they'd sealed the kettle again... I'm sure they wouldn't have let me out again even if they'd watched me go in.

Nobody seems to have any sort of coherent plan at these things.

avoiding being kettled's a good start

 

[shaman75]

avoiding being kettled's a good start

lol. i've avoided being kettled since i got trapped in traf square at the mayday one years ago and persuaded a copper i was a tourist from balham.

makes it a bit difficult to document events tho.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Shirley, you're not suggesting some law is rushed, ill-thought-through and often factually illegal i.e. the recent immigration cap?

It's an old problem, although it does appear (possibly due to the massively expanded legislative timetables) to have gotten a lot worse over the last 20 or so years, The immigration cap was a pretty good example of a government minister demanding legislation and not giving the Civil Servants responsible for researching the possible complications enough time to do their job.

how do we deal with such abuse?

The only way it can be dealt with - testing the legislation. I always reckon pingu (the Urbanite, not the animated penguin) is a good example of this, given his involvement in showing up the Dangerous Dogs Act for the crap it is.

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

bye bye legal aid.....

Doesn't help, does it? Although we don't yet appear to have reverted to a starkly-divided 2-tier criminal justice system, there certainly appears to be an almost constant pressure to make access to justice for those without fat wallets more and more difficult.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So why don't these officers say, no, actually sarge, I'm not going to hit kids with sticks or keep them kettled in freezing temperatures or chase them on horseback? Lad who wrote that is seventeen btw.

Why not? Because they're taught to respect and obey the chain of command, which means that each rank looks upward for direction, and makes it less than likely that any officer will take the initiative and refuse to do the task they're allotted.
In the military all soldiers are obligated to refuse to carry out any orders that don't accord to the Rules of Engagement, and soldiers will all know their RoE thoroughly (if you don't, you can be heavily disciplined). I'm not sure that individual police officers have a similar legal obligation.

Oh, and if d-b starts going off about how I'm anti-police and pro-military, please refer him to the words "I'm not sure" in the final sentence. I'd hate him to get aerated just because he didn't read the post properly.

 

[detective-boy]

So why don't these officers say, no, actually sarge, I'm not going to hit kids with sticks or keep them kettled in freezing temperatures or chase them on horseback?

Because it is a lawful order - what they are asked to do is within the law as they understand it. HOW they do it (i.e. whether they use force or not) is a decision for the individual officers ... which is why we do NOT see the vast majority of officers hitting "kids with sticks".

Individual officers do raise issues about the use of particular tactics ... but that cannot be done during the actual operation or everything would simply fall to pieces.

Lad who wrote that is seventeen btw

And your point is?

 

[detective-boy]

Not sure you understand why I've said it would be self-defence.. If I was smashing a window and a staff member decided to take it upon themselves to physically attack me to try to stop me from doing so, then I would regard it as self-defence to use violence against them to defend myself.

I disagree. And the law would too. s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 - we all have the right to use reasonable and necessary force to prevent crime.

Rubbsih. The police/state will always try to put out through the media the story they want to tell, and that will always be likely to contain smears and lies about the protesters that they want to paint in a particular light. My skepticism arises from witnessing lies being told about an attack on a target (McD's) that was very definitely connected with the purpose of the protest (anti-capitalism/anti-globalisation).

I have yet to encounter a protest where the police said there was some out-and-out crime ... and yet there was none.

And you need to also factor in what the MEDIA do to skew the coverage - not all of the hype (and I would suggest not much of it at all) actually originates from the police.

 

[detective-boy]

Nobody seems to have any sort of coherent plan at these things.

Maybe. I think it is more likely that someone does ... but without them explaining it to you, in the context of the bigger picture of which you are not aware, you wouldn't know ... and none of us would be able to work out just from watching what was actually done.

 

[8ball]

Coherent, yet ineffable?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Because it is a lawful order - what they are asked to do is within the law as they understand it. HOW they do it (i.e. whether they use force or not) is a decision for the individual officers ... which is why we do NOT see the vast majority of officers hitting "kids with sticks".

Individual officers do raise issues about the use of particular tactics ... but that cannot be done during the actual operation or everything would simply fall to pieces.

Funny that, because I've seen coppers hitting kids with sticks at every major demo I've been to over the last few months. In fact, I've seen whole lines of coppers, obviously acting on orders, batoning whichever poor sods happen to be at the front of the kettle.

No fucking good raising the issue after you've batterred some poor wee kids is it? Bit late.

And your point is?

That the people your lot are battering and criminalising are children. You read his piece, purposefully being let out of one kettle so that the coppers can baton charge them, so the mounties can charge at them, freezing cold kids having to try and assemble fucking barricades to fend off violent attacks from heavily armed and fully grown policemen. And you wonder why so many people despise the Police, as an institution and as individuals.

 

[shaman75]

Maybe. I think it is more likely that someone does ... but without them explaining it to you, in the context of the bigger picture of which you are not aware, you wouldn't know ... and none of us would be able to work out just from watching what was actually done.

Of course. But do you think I should have some sort of information as to why I'm being detained in the case of being prevented from walking up whitehall, away from a protest which has been contained? Is there a legal requirement to be informed, as there is when you are arrested? Even if not, I'd say it would be a good thing to do. If you do not know why you are being detained, how can you know whether it's legally right or not?

This incident was, I believe from reports and video/ photo's I've seen afterwards, where police walked through Trafalgar Square, forcing people out (presumably those who might be students), down Whitehall, even stopping to go into McDonalds and pull people out of there, to put them all in a protest at the other end of the street.

I don't understand this at all. I saw no people doing anything untoward on Whitehall, just milling about or heading towards or away from the contained protest. If there was a problem in Trafalgar Square, which I've seen no evidence of anyway, why didn't they contain the problem there?

 

[ferrelhadley]

Conservative member of the MPA calls for protesters to lodge complaints against the Met.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/22/kettling-video-appalling-police-watchdog

The chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority's civil liberties panel has condemned video footage appearing to show protesters being crushed by police attempting to contain them in a "kettle" during student anti-fees demonstrations in London two weeks ago as "appalling" and "ghastly".

Victoria Borwick, who is also a Conservative member of the Greater London Authority, encouraged protesters to make official complaints against the Met and said other police forces were making a better job of public order policing.

 

[dylans]

The chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority's civil liberties panel has condemned video footage appearing to show protesters being crushed by police attempting to contain them in a "kettle" during student anti-fees demonstrations in London two weeks ago as "appalling" and "ghastly".

More "hysterical over reaction" to the rapidly becoming infamous police kettling video from Victoria Borwick, chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority's civil liberties panel (and a Tory!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/22/kettling-video-appalling-police-watchdog.

(damn, ferrelhadley beat me to it)

 

[audiotech]

Just heard that Sean Dilley, political correspondent for TalkSport was battoned twice on the back by police on the student demonstration. Dilley is blind and was assisting an injured protester at the time. Dilley's father was a senior officer in the police and is one of their most strongest defenders. An investigation is taking place into the incident.

 

[DotCommunist]

is it wrong that I immediately thought 'talksport cunt deserves it'

 

[shaman75]

Just heard that Sean Dilley, political correspondent for TalkSport was battoned twice on the back by police on the student demonstration. Dilley is blind and was assisting an injured protester at the time. Dilley's father was a senior officer in the police and is one of their most strongest defenders. An investigation is taking place into the incident.

just listening now

 

[audiotech]

He has a dog he named 'Chipp' if that helps?

 

[audiotech]

From 'The Guardian' link.

This was a far more aggressive form of kettling...

and

David Mead, an expert in public order policing and law at the University of East Anglia, said physically restricting the space occupied by protesters was a significant development from previous kettling exercises. "I suspect this is likely not to be a lawful kettle," he added.