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

[littlebabyjesus]

Which, roughly translated, means "Actually he has a point but I can't bring myself to acknowledge it ... "

It means what it says. And now I really will stop engaging. I've made it perfectly clear that I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[detective-boy]

this

I still don't see exactly what point you are trying to make. The particular combination of features of the MayDay 2001 containment were different from when it had been used previously ... but the containment tactic simply was not new and giving it a trendy new name does not make it so.

 

[Streathamite]

Orgreave I would disagree - the violence started with the protestors attacking / resisting / trying to break police lines and steadily escalated from there.

No it did NOT. I was there and I saw violence instigated, without provocation, by police on horseback and on foot, and I saw this repeated on picket lines throughout that strike.
I know what I saw.

 

[revol68]

Articles such as that absolutely justify very robust and restrictive policing tactics from the outset of every protest which could be considered as being against the State. If you subscribe to that view then I look forward to you explaining that "Someone has to say it: mass violence against the police inevitably means that the police will use restrictive and robust policing tactics from an early stage, to defend themselves let alone the interests they are defending. We wish it wasn't but it is. The reason is simple: the protestors are intent on attacking the State unconditionally and the police are the only part of the State actually available for physical attack so they attacked without remorse - or even a second thought. Reasonable police officers yearn for a compromise, whereby they facilitate peaceful and lawful protest: but the extremist protestors aren't listening. Neither should the rest.".

Your cunt mate Paddick let the cat out of the bag though, suggesting rounding up people before protests. When it comes down to it when protesters refuse to submit to the demands and whims of the police, refuse to go on agreed a to b marches and refuse to be kettled and refuse to cower in the face of truncheons but instead fight back, the iron fist comes out.

It's not my job to provide strategy or analysis for the ruling class or the pigs, my only concern for them is that they are beaten or shown up for the cunts they are.

 

[sherpa]

If that was the name of the demo it does rather give away the intention to commit unlawful violence ...

You really are a concrete thinker, aren't you, Mr Literal?

 

[gunneradt]

Have you any idea how stupid that pathetically ignorant comment makes you sound?

The vast majority of the crowd were anything but a load of old unwashed crusties, you clueless cretin.

is that right? Convince the general public of that then

 

[editor]

I still don't see exactly what point you are trying to make. The particular combination of features of the MayDay 2001 containment were different from when it had been used previously ... but the containment tactic simply was not new and giving it a trendy new name does not make it so.

What happened at Mayday was outrageous and totally unjustifiable. It wasn't a 'containment tactic' it was unlawful imprisonment, with people detained in sub human conditions.

 

[editor]

is that right? Convince the general public of that then

That's not my job or my interest, but why are you posting up such ignorant rubbish?

 

[detective-boy]

Sometimes you have to accept it. By their very nature, such things are not reported and certainly never get anywhere near a court. People are giving you honest accounts of their experiences here. You ought to start taking them seriously.

People's accounts (honest or otherwise) tend to be focused on their individual experience ... which they then extrapolate to cover the whole protest ("I saw no snooker balls thrown ... therefore there were no snooker balls thrown at any part of the protest").

That applies in much of my experience too ... but at a higher rank I got to see the whole picture and I can state without fear of contradiction that on every occasion more robust (and properly "violent") police tactics were used it was in response to proper violence being used somewhere in the protest.

I am giving you my honest account of my experience here. You ought to start taking it seriously.

 

[sherpa]

That's not my job or my interest, but why are you posting up such ignorant rubbish?

Because he's an idiot?

 

[detective-boy]

I have just given you to examples, stonehenge and Orgreave where police violence is well recorded and accepted by the courts (in both cases when substantial compensation payouts were given) . You have chosen to ignore them.

YOU have (and I have responded).

The other fuckwit hasn't. He just posts pompous foolishness.

 

[sherpa]

People's accounts (honest or otherwise) tend to be focused on their individual experience ... which they then extrapolate to cover the whole protest ("I saw no snooker balls thrown ... therefore there were no snooker balls thrown at any part of the protest").

That applies in much of my experience too ... but at a higher rank I got to see the whole picture and I can state without fear of contradiction that on every occasion more robust (and properly "violent") police tactics were used it was in response to proper violence being used somewhere in the protest.

I am giving you my honest account of my experience here. You ought to start taking it seriously.

Rank. You like the idea of rank, don't you? It seeps out of every post you write, you closet authoritarian.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Stop calling people fuckwits.

 

[detective-boy]

I'd say it started when the police - some on horseback - tried to physically force people into places where they didn't want to go.

i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.

It is the aggregated up equivalent of the use of violence to resist an arrest which, as you know, is universally suggested as being a good idea as (a) it will rarely work; (b) it will likely lead to you being injured and (c) it may well result in you committing a criminal offence even if you hadn't up to that point.

The use of violence to resist a police use of force in a public order situation is no more sensible or likely to end in anything other than tears. As with an arrest considered unlawful the thing to do is to gather evidence and mount a challenge in the courts.

 

[Streathamite]

Gilmours boy has been nicked

abou time that there was some payback for 'dark Side Of The Moon'

 

[detective-boy]

Whose facts?

The facts as determined by some form on investigation or enquiry. Or reported by an independent observer such as a reliable reporter.

 

[detective-boy]

Then you disagree with the courts who dismissed all charges against the miners (some of whom were charged with riot) and handed out substantial compensation payouts. ALL independent research into Orgreave lay the blame for the violence on the unprovoked attacks of the police.

No. Those are decisons based on individual actions taken by individual officers against individual miners. They actually point up the distinction I have been trying to make.

 

[revlon]

I still don't see exactly what point you are trying to make. The particular combination of features of the MayDay 2001 containment were different from when it had been used previously ... but the containment tactic simply was not new and giving it a trendy new name does not make it so.

"The facts of this case are quite exceptional. Never before, or since, May 1, 2001 have the police in England formed cordons enclosing a crowd of thousands before a substantial breakdown of law and order has occurred, with the result that the crowd were prevented from leaving for many hours".

aye and this we, the general public, get to call 'kettling'.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

But the context in which the point had arisen was all about red mist and getting carried away.

Go back and read the posts which preceded it.

Don't start taking things entirely out of context as you do with monotonous regularity ...

There's no need to read fuck all again - you said;

A psychologist would undoubtedly agree that there is an aspect of group think that takes over in such situations (and, having experienced it, I know that it does and that it is difficult to maintain individual perspective) but the vast majority of officers are able to maintain an appropriate attitude and act perfectly properly. In fact, just like there are examples of soldiers being reluctant to kill the enemy on an individual level, even when participating in an attack on a particular objective, I have observed officers reluctant to use significant force during a public order operation even when it is perfectly justifiable on an individual level (on one occasion resulting in a person lawfully arrested for a serious offence being freed and one of the arresting officers significantly injured).

A soldier reluctant to engage with the enemy has fuck all to do with red mist & getting carried away in the moment. So quit acting like a cock.

 

[detective-boy]

It's not my job to provide strategy or analysis for the ruling class or the pigs, my only concern for them is that they are beaten or shown up for the cunts they are.

From your statement you are resisting the rule of law.

You are more of a fuckwit than I thought if you think that fighting the fucking police who are applying the law is going to change the law ...

 

[revlon]

i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.

It is the aggregated up equivalent of the use of violence to resist an arrest which, as you know, is universally suggested as being a good idea as (a) it will rarely work; (b) it will likely lead to you being injured and (c) it may well result in you committing a criminal offence even if you hadn't up to that point.

The use of violence to resist a police use of force in a public order situation is no more sensible or likely to end in anything other than tears. As with an arrest considered unlawful the thing to do is to gather evidence and mount a challenge in the courts.

this is incorrect

 

[detective-boy]

Stop calling people fuckwits.

Now where should I start with my list of things for you and others to stop calling the police generally and me personally ...

 

[detective-boy]

this is incorrect

Thank you for the detailed justification of your position ...

 

[Mr.Bishie]

YOU have (and I have responded).

The other fuckwit hasn't. He just posts pompous foolishness.

I take it that's aimed in my direction? Give Chief Constable Martin Richards a ring, i'm sure he'll explain why protesters were kettled before the demonstration even took place, & that he'll also explain why those who were kettled were arrested under Section 14.

And drop the insults.

 

[revlon]

Thank you for the detailed justification of your position ...

it's both factual and legally incorrect.

 

[audiotech]

What a totally fuckwitted thing to suggest - that the time taken for a fucking response is in any way associated with it's reliability ...

The "reliability" of the response didn't come into it. It was the fact that the reply was just:

It isn't though.

Pantomime stuff.

I've been away making and eating my Sunday tea btw.

Now orf to walk the dog.

 

[editor]

i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.

Out of curiosity, what are basing your opinions on here? What you've read in the papers or the words of the people who were actually there?

If the cops were using excessive and unreasonable force then it is not a lawful use of force.

 

[dylans]

No. Those are decisons based on individual actions taken by individual officers against individual miners. They actually point up the distinction I have been trying to make.

Interesting you bring that up because in the case of Stonehenge the court decisions were the result of a 6 year battle against Wiltshire police. No action was taken against individual officers and do you know why?

Because the bastards wore no identifying numbers.

You are also only partly correct in respect to Orgreave. Yes all charges were dropped against the miners but successful court action was also brought against South Yorkshire police who settled out of court with a 425.000 compensation pay out.

 

[revol68]

From your statement you are resisting the rule of law.

You are more of a fuckwit than I thought if you think that fighting the fucking police who are applying the law is going to change the law ...

and complying with the pigs gets you where exactly?

how many dead in Iraq and Afghanistan because people complied with the law?

 

[ernestolynch]

Ban the pig.