It isn't though.
London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
It is a well known legal position that an individual police officer CANNOT be ordered to use force by a senior officer and that ANY use of force by an individual officer MUST be justified by THEM. In the case of the deployment of a group of officers acting together in a situation where some level of force is used (pushing, shoving) then I think it has never been particularly controversial that the individual officers doing the pushing and shoving are entitled to justify that level of force by reference to the wider deployment of the tactic by the senior officers to prevent crime / disorder, etc.
The point I am making is that we are now seeing, as a matter of almost routine, officers using far more force on that basis and that is what I am not at all sure the law permits.
Instead of glibly dismissing the issue, I suggest you take the time to think it through more carefully.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
That response took some time and I see not much in the way of informed comment to back it up.
It's not fucking pedantry you moron. It's an attempt to actually analyse the situation in detail instead of shouting slogans at each other.
But of course you are neither capable of sensible debate, or minded to engage in it.
So fuck off with your tedious, obsessive shite.
It's from learning from those days that the practice arose ...I wish someone had told that to the cops who threw me in a cell with a BNP skinhead for 6 hours following a troops out march in the 1980s. Ever spend 6 hours in a tiny cell without speaking to the guy growling at you in the corner.? By unspoken agreement we would swap an hour at a time staring out of the gap in the door. Longest 6 hours I ever spent.
Having witnessed exactly that on a number of occasions I can testify that it was usually due to the pathetically inadequate quality of the truncheons than any excess of force of use ... (the older ones were heavy wood / ebony ... but in the 70s and 80s, probably due to a desire to save money as much as reduce injuries caused, they swopped to a much lighter, red-coloured wood which was, frankly, absolutely useless in most situations when you needed it - cops referred to it as "balsa" - it wasn't ... but it wasn't far off!!)
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
There's a truncheon in the Museum of Welsh Life that's made from a bull's "organ".
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
the fucking cheek of it. i bet you took evey opportunity to prove just how 'easily' they broke
Don't be so fucking hysterical. It's footage of a police line moving forward in a very slow and controlled way, with the crowd (despite their protestations) finding somewhere to go and then the line stopping (when it becomes apparent that the crowd have now been pushed back as far as they can go (no doubt confirmed by the unit inspector climbing on to the wall to get a look at what is happening at the back). There is no specific force used against any particular individual protestor. There is no inappropraite statements made. There is nothing that makes it particularly "worth watching".
i'll dig out the papers. But this was in court, which i sat through for several days to listen to no amount of bullshit from the top boys in blue, all of whom passed on responsibility for forming a kettle before their was any evidence of violence by protestors. In fact they presented no evidence of any form of violence being committed before the kettle and justified the kettle for the violence that happened after people were penned in against their will and battered indiscrimately by riot police.
just as i thought long term desk jockey - you were the reason the cps took over the charging process because you could never get the fucking charge right.
About what?
(Before answering this, I suggest you actually read what I have posted before claiming that I have said something I actually haven't but which, based entirely on your prejudices, you think I have ...)
I have heard it referred to in many documentary programmes and seen it discussed in many scholarly and serious articles over the years.
Here's an on-line reference to it: http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm. I have just found this and It is not something I have seen before, but it refers to the phenomenon I am referring to in some detail.
I am surprised that such an expert on matters miltary as you profess to be has never heard of it.
editor
hiraethified
Any chance of you (and others) keeping this civil please? It would be a shame to see this important thread being trashed by another name-calling, expletive-fest.
I finally succeed in achieving what I came here for ... providing information which helps people make sense of what happens and to establish what is and what is not a major issue ...
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
This is assertion dressed up as fact from DB:
Holding this sort of position, whether honestly or not, DB finds it very easy to dismiss:
This doesn’t mean that he is always wrong. However, it does mean that all his claims of informed objectivity should be put to one side, and everything he posts read in the context of his, at times thoroughly fanciful, underpinning ideas and assumptions.
Louis MacNeice
(1) : the police (as an organisation) are invariably correct when they say that they (as an organisation) are not the first to act violently and that their use of force (in the form of tactics used by them as an organisation) is invariably in an attempt to prevent disorder, violence and crime and / or to protect themselves (as an organisation).
Holding this sort of position, whether honestly or not, DB finds it very easy to dismiss:
threats by a police inspector against a 12 year old boy;
the inherent potential for violence in 'kettling';
the enduring political character of the police as a force.
the inherent potential for violence in 'kettling';
the enduring political character of the police as a force.
This doesn’t mean that he is always wrong. However, it does mean that all his claims of informed objectivity should be put to one side, and everything he posts read in the context of his, at times thoroughly fanciful, underpinning ideas and assumptions.
Louis MacNeice
No, I'm just pointing out something I noticed in one of the pictures.
I have made no claim whatsoever about it being "the whole story". In fact, I have made no comment at all about it, beyond simply noting that it is visible.
Yes, it would be ... if that is what happened. As I made clear in my post.
Yes, I know that. But the other police tactics amount to detention short of arrest too, in fact even if never established in law.
And, as I acknowledged, a very low level of force is obviously inherent in any detention ... but I asked for evidence that it was "violent" in the usually understood meaning of the word (you don't, for instance, automatically describe every arrest as "violent" even though a low level of force is always used. It is not helpful to describe containment as a "violent" tactic - it is plainly nothing of the sort when compared with tactics such as baton charges, mounted police charges, snatch squads, etc.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Prepare to be fucked by the long dick of the law...
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I think it's the most chilling thing I have seen in a long time and more importantly so do those who experienced it. The cops have succeeded in educating a large section of young demonstrators about the actions and intentions of the police. So shrug it off if you wish but don't be surprised if on the next demonstration the cops get a fucking good hiding from demonstrators who won't accept this again. I for one hope so.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
He also fatally undermines his own position at the same time. If the police, as he claims, as an organisation are never the first to use force then why does he go onto to say then when they do use force first it's as part of a plan to prevent disorder. There's a claim that something never happens followed by a (feeble) explanation of why it does happen.
Yes, I did. And as anyone who watches it and puts it in perspective will agree, it was footage of absolutely routine policing with nothing particularly inappropriate done (by either "side").
When described as you do it obviously sounds like it was a stupid / dangerous thing to do. As, in fact, no-one was injured and no excessive violence was used by either "side", it is apparent that your fears were unfounded. And that there is no evidence that the tactic was carried out in a careless, negligent or reckless manner.
The footage seen last week of horses charging at speed into a clearly unresisting and retreating crowd could properly be described as "disgraceful", the subjects as "terrified" and the absence of serious injury as being "only by luck".
The footage seen of individiual officers plainly intentionally striking non-violent (on an individual level) protestors on the head with batons and shield edges could properly be described as "disgraceful", the subjects as "terrified" and the absence of fatal injury as being only by "luck".
To use those descriptions for the absolutely routine, tedious footage in the clip referred to is inaccurate and it totally devalues your argument, particularly amongst ordinary people who maybe haven't seen the other footage and will watch that and go "Fucking hell, that doesn't look all that bad. Is that all they are whinging about?".
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sooner or later, someone will die in a kettle, d-b. And those that organised and carried out the kettle will be to blame.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
It seemed pretty simple to me. The police are never the first to use force, but they may use force in order to stop something that is about to happen. Have you not seen Minority Report?
The containment was tight - it is actually part of the tactic to make sure that it is (otherwise the contained group can move around and get momentum, etc. allowing them to make more effective attempts to break through a line and defeat the purpose of the tactic) and uncomfortable ... but there is no indication that it was so tight that it was damgerously so. Officers using the tactic (at both command and tactical level) are more than well aware of Hillsborough and the dangers of crushes and other crowd dynamics.
(Personally I think it unwise to use the tactic on a bridge over the Thames - not because it is likely to actually become necessary for people to jump, or be forced, over the sides but because some people may panic and believe that they have to.)
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
It's mostly referring to WW2, Vietnam, Korea etc. It does say this though; "Superior training currently used by military organizations helps make the decision for the individual." There certainly wasn't any 'superior training' given to soldiers of those said wars, unlike today where there is superior & intensive training.
I am surprised that such an expert on matters miltary as you profess to be has never heard of it.
Where did you pluck that one from? I've never professed to any such thing.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
What a totally fuckwitted thing to suggest - that the time taken for a fucking response is in any way associated with it's reliability ...
In terms of informed comment, it has been done routinely since at least the early 90s, when police photographers began to be deployed as part of public order operations and photographs became a practical option (taking names had been done previously but was not really particularly effective for obvious reasons ...). It became even more commonplace as digital cameras made it practically more do-able (and affordable).
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
So from a picture, you know for definite that it's a snooker ball?
And as to whether it was actually thrown by someone is pure speculation. Though if plod say it was thrown, then it has to be true
Similar threads
