Weds 1st April: G20 protests - discussion, reaction and chat

[pdxm]

I really don't understand your point? the portable toilets were outside of the 'kettle', police advised me to find a spot out of their sight to urinate, if they could see me it was an £80 fine.

Not sure what you mean with your comments about the climate camp either? There were thousands of people, Jesus would have struggled, pretty sure he was given water to turn into wine.

My point is if I were attending a political event that involved thousands of people, with the possibly on past form of it being a long day, and with the possibility on past form of problems from whatever corner, I would

a) bring water
b) bring food
c) bring any essential medication
d) leave the kids at home

Must be the boy scout in me

Now off to bad

 

[panpete]

Or maybe they worked out that the Bank of England protest wasnt appropriate for children, but that a fluffy hippified sitdown in the street complete with childrens area and prior police liaison would be and didnt expect riot police to charge in with batons at the ready.

this^

 

[Intastella]

Witnesses Statement: Death at G20

Icon_article Published: Thursday 02 April 2009 21:10 by Imc London

Tagged as: g20 tomlinson witnesses
Neighbourhoods: bank city_of_london cornhill

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Various participants in the City of London demonstrations on April 1st have come forward as witnesses to the collapse of a man later identified by authorities as Ian Tomlinson. Four different university students witnessed the collapse of Mr. Tomlinson. "He stumbled towards us from the direction of police and protestors and collapsed," said Peter Apps. "I saw a demonstrator who was a first aider attend to the person who had collapsed. The man was late 40s, had tattoos on his hands, and was wearing a Millwall shirt."

While the first aider was helping the man, another demonstrator with a megaphone was calling the police over so that they could help.

Natalie Langford, a student at Queen Mary, said "there was a police charge. A lot of people ran in our direction. The woman giving first aid stood in the path of the crowd." The running people, seeing a guy on the ground, went around them.

Another demonstrator had already called 999 and was getting medical advice from the ambulance dispatcher. "Four police with two police medics came. They told her [the first aider] to 'move along'.", said Peter Apps. "Then they pushed her forcibly away from him. They refused to listen to her [the first aider] when she tried to explain his condition."

The first aider, who did not wish to be named, said "The police surrounded the collapsed man. I was standing with the person who'd called 999. The ambulance dispatcher wanted to talk to the police, the phone was being held out to them, but the police refused."

Another witness, Elias Stoakes, added "we didn't see them [the police] perform CPR."

Other people who had tried to stay with the collapsed man were also pushed away.

All of the witnesses deny the allegation that many missiles were thrown.

According to Peter Apps, "one bottle was thrown, but it didn't come close to the police. Nothing was thrown afterwards as other demonstrators told the person to stop. The person who threw the bottle probably didn't realize that someone was behind the ring of police." All the witnesses said that the demonstrators were concerned for the well-being of the collapsed man once they realized that there was an injured person.

Natalie Langford said "when the ambulance arrived the protestors got straight out of the way."

These witnesses are happy to give media statements.

Link to follow, as soon as he gets off his arse and gives it to me!

 

[Azrael]

*If* this is accurate, and the police stopped the man getting medical assistance, it sounds like the officers could be up for manslaughter.

What a squalid thing to contemplate.

 

[ymu]

Murder too, if you read the link editor posted.

 

[smokedout]

Others have quoted the kettle as going in at 1945hrs. Even if we agree at your 6ish estimate, sunset today in London was at 1938 so it was about to get dark. So No flaw in my argument.

heres a pic from around midnight, the kettle was still in place and this is the old bill preparing to charge the small crowd on the outside of the kettle to the North

the climate campers are still kettled in on both sides behind that line

now go back and look at the video, its daylight, that wasnt done to clear the Bishopsgate

even you must accept that night follows day

 

[DotCommunist]

'PDXM in blind defense of his colleagues actions shocka'

 

[smokedout]

just found a better example, here you can see the climate camp is still in place

so, given that youve just spent half the thread defending what happened in that video as being necessary to clear Bishopsgate, and its now been proved that this was not done to clear Bishopsgate.

It was in fact a fairly random attack on the camp made with the aim of making the kettle smaller and more uncomfortable for those inside.

are you going to change your position on the action of your colleagues given this new information

 

[editor]

My point is if I were attending a political event that involved thousands of people, with the possibly on past form of it being a long day, and with the possibility on past form of problems from whatever corner, I would

a) bring water
b) bring food
c) bring any essential medication
d) leave the kids at home

Must be the boy scout in me

Now off to bad

So you're now saying that anyone exercising their democratic right to peacefully protest should be now feel compelled to bring along food, provisions, medication, extra clothing and a portable toilet in expectation of being incarcerated for anything up to 12 hours by the State?

Oh, and hire a childminder because the police - on top of imprisoning the protesters - may once again employ disproportionately aggressive tactics?

This isn't the boy scout in you. It's the fascist.

 

[Corax]

Is a debatable parenting judgement really at the heart of things here?

Just seems to me that pdxm would prefer to pursue this tangent than focus on the other issues in this thread.

 

[Barking_Mad]

My point is if I were attending a political event that involved thousands of people, with the possibly on past form of it being a long day, and with the possibility on past form of problems from whatever corner, I would

a) bring water
b) bring food
c) bring any essential medication
d) leave the kids at home

Must be the boy scout in me

Now off to bad

How about a helmet to protect your person from violent riot police? And they should make sure that they take enough photos of police to make up for when they do this.

Legal Observors called out to people to take the police numbers of those who
had hurt protesters; on mass the line of police all covered up their
badges. It was a chilling show of a police unaccountable to their own
laws, and their own humanity. The police were indeed braced for
violence, but most of that young crowd of protesters were not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/apr/02/g20-protest-kettling

 

[Blagsta]

Oh right. So not going to address the responsibility or otherwise of taking children to an all day political protest with associated and well known hazards then?

You sound like my mum when I told her we took our daughter to the demo last Saturday! You're not a 67 year old Belfast woman are you?

 

[albionism]

So you're now saying that anyone exercising their democratic right to peacefully protest should be now feel compelled to bring along food, provisions, medication, extra clothing and a portable toilet in expectation of being incarcerated for anything up to 12 hours by the State?

Oh, and hire a childminder because the police - on top of imprisoning the protesters - may once again employ disproportionately aggressive tactics?

This isn't the boy scout in you. It's the fascist.

Absolutely...Well said Ed

 

[pdxm]

No, I'm saying that any sensible person exercising judgement would have done a little homework before turing up. It's not like cordons are new or anything are they? They've been a tactic since 2001. Even the G20 climate camp warned people to come well fed and with provisions. It's called common sense. Unless of course your principles require you to be come thirsty and hunngry so you can feel extra hard done by.

 

[editor]

Even the G20 climate camp warned people to come well fed and with provisions.

You don't even understand the difference between the two demos, do you?

But let's put it another way. Do you think it is right that persons wishing to exercise their democratic right to peacefully protest on important issues that affect their everyday lives should be expected to put up with being imprisoned and deprived of food, water and sanitation for anything up to 12 hours?

In other words, do you endorse the state's campaign to effectively try and silence protest by making it such an uncomfortable ordeal that many people will be dissuaded from attending?

 

[Corax]

No, I'm saying that any sensible person exercising judgement would have done a little homework before turing up. It's not like cordons are new or anything are they? They've been a tactic since 2001. Even the G20 climate camp warned people to come well fed and with provisions. It's called common sense. Unless of course your principles require you to be come thirsty and hunngry so you can feel extra hard done by.

So an expectation that the police will act in accordance with the law that they are supposed to uphold is unreasonable?

Naive, I'll give you, but these weren't hardened protest veterans, they were fluffy middle class organic vegans.


Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know or care about the law, being a policeman and that.

 

[Azrael]

For perspective, under PACE, a person under arrest for the most heinous crimes has a statutory right to a solicitor, medical attention, water, three square meals, eight hours' sleep, and sanitation.

Protestors, against whom no reasonable suspicion for any crime has been shown or even claimed, have nothing.

In short, an arrested murderer has far more protection than a "kettled" protestor. And the useless Human Rights Act appears to be okay with this.

 

[pdxm]

So an expectation that theb police will act in accordance with the law that they are supposed to uphold is unreasonable?

Naive, I'll give you, but these weren't hardened protest veterans, they were fluffy middle class organic vegans.


Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know or care about the law, being a policeman and that.

You seem to forget the court decision which said that the sort of cordons employed were lawful. And I take it that "fluffy middle class vegans" have computers? I mean if you look at the website and see details of what to bring along side reams of legal information about what to do when dealing with the police you might call such ill-preparedness something a little bit stronger than "naiviety".

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

For perspective, under PACE, a person under arrest for the most heinous crimes has a statutory right to a solicitor, medical attention, water, three square meals, eight hours' sleep, and sanitation.

Protestors, against whom no reasonable suspicion for any crime has been shown or even claimed, have nothing.

In short, an arrested murderer has far more protection than a "kettled" protestor. And the useless Human Rights Act appears to be okay with this.

This.


The sad thing PDXM, is that this time the police activity hasn't just been notied by the protestors. This time, the actions have been noted by a whole load of other people.

I wasn't a protestor, and I'm not sure how much I agree with or disagree with what the protests were about, tbh I was a bit of a fence sitter. I know I disgaree with the bail outs and the growing gap apparent in the richh and poor, but that is all.

However after watching the live BBC news stream all afternoon, where a reporter was held in one of the kettles, and after looking at some of the photos and videos freely floating around on the internet, it seems pretty obvious to me and many of my mates (who arn't actually anti-police) that in this instance the police did nothing but aggravate the situation. It is plainly obious to any of the ordinary citizens who are savvy enough to use google, or open an e-mail. Itwas the police behaviouron the day that have made me realise that actually the protestors were right, and that no one, especially the police is there for the little man, but for protecting state ideals decided by a powerful few. The police by thier actions have shown this.

And I am not normally anti-police, I can appreicate that it is a thankless task, however on this occasion, the MET was wrong, and mean, and inhumane. And as an oridinary citizen I am appauled by the behaviour.

This time, it hasn't just been noted by smelly vegan hippies, but ordinary people. I am so shocked and appauled bu the bhaviour I have circcualted the videos and photos to my freinds, and hopefully they are sending them on too. When you start to alienate the ordinary people you run into trouble.

If I were you I would tell your police mates this, and that they should be vary careful, becasue next time you and your collegues will be watched very carefully indeed, by ordinary citizens, who are becomeing more and more aware of the police motives.

I don't intend to argue with you, I don't care how you wish to defend yourelf, becasue my mind is already made up and the police actions I saw on LIVE TV are indefensable.

All I am saying is: Behaviour Noted. IYSWIM.

 

[tangentlama]

For anyone still confused about the nature of the Climate Camp, read Amelia's blog: http://www.ameliasmagazine.com/amelias_blog/2009/04/climate_camp_in_the_city.php

 

[smokedout]

wonder what they think of the police now?

 

[Azrael]

This time, the actions have been noted by a whole load of other people.

Myself included. I'm a conservative who's as far from the ACAB brigade as you can get, and I disagree with the protestors across the board. But I'm also a civil libertarian, and mass-detention of peaceful protestors is an affront to liberty.

 

[free spirit]

No, I'm saying that any sensible person exercising judgement would have done a little homework before turing up. It's not like cordons are new or anything are they? They've been a tactic since 2001. Even the G20 climate camp warned people to come well fed and with provisions. It's called common sense. Unless of course your principles require you to be come thirsty and hunngry so you can feel extra hard done by.

I know this isn't strictly relevant, but just to give you some background information about the organisation you work for, and the tactics they're willing to adopt to ensure that even the most well organised protesters are made to have as uncomfortable a time of it as possible...

in 2005 dissent had set up a protest campsite capable of hosting, feeding, sheltering and providing sanitory facilities for upto 5000 protester who were making the long trek to the wilds of scotland to protest at the G8's neoliberal policies (you know, the ones that have led us into the mess we're currently in).

Now, we'd anticipated we may well get locked down at times, so were well able to cope with a few hours of police lockdown. What we hadn't anticipated was that the Metropolitan Police Gold Commander would over rule the local area polices Gold Commander, and even ignore the advice of council environmental health officers, NHS public health experts, and our own fully qualified site medics, to refuse to allow the toilet cleaning trucks from the portaloo company to come on site to clean the toilets for 2 days, despite an outbreak of dioreah on the site that had seen 30 people being treated in our on site medical facilties.

Now, being resourceful types, we managed to bring the diorreah problem under control through the use of alcohol gel across the site, and isolating those affected, but your glorious leaders were perfectly willing to allow a major public health outbreak on the site to occur in order that they could play their little power games with us.

Luckily, the council licensing officers managed to get the police to see sense, otherwise we'd have been forced to play the game tit for tat, and take action to prevent the companies that were servicing the hundreds of portaloos the police had hired from servicing them... which being as I knew exactly which companies were supplying and servicing your portaloos, wouldn't have been particularly difficult to achieve... that was probably one of the milder courses of action, compared to some of the other solutions suggested for what to do with the shit we were accumulating on site.

Bottom line is your commanders are utter cunts, who for whatever reason have decided that it is their job to harras, intimidate and make it as uncomfortable as possible for anyone who has the temerity to take to the streets to protests at the despicable shit this government, and it's neoliberal friends have done. Even the head boy of Stirling Police told me he was shocked at the way the Met had behaved and was glad to see the back of you, which says something IMO.

 

[Corax]

You seem to forget the court decision which said that the sort of cordons employed were lawful.

A decision that relied upon a 'policy' judgement, and is likely to be torn up once it gets to the ECHR.

 

[grogwilton]

You seem to forget the court decision which said that the sort of cordons employed were lawful. And I take it that "fluffy middle class vegans" have computers? I mean if you look at the website and see details of what to bring along side reams of legal information about what to do when dealing with the police you might call such ill-preparedness something a little bit stronger than "naiviety".

Its not legal for you to cover up their numbers which you do as routine. I dont expect anything better from you as I have at the tender age of 23 lost any faith that the Met is an independent, professional and lawful organisation a long time ago, from numerous bad experiences. My gf on the other hand has only just encountered this, and I believe now holds you in similar low esteem, from her comments about you on the climate camp. And she has quite a lot of police in her family.

 

[Azrael]

A decision that relied upon a 'policy' judgement, and is likely to be torn up once it gets to the ECHR.

With respect to Louise Christian, she fails to see that the root of the problem is in the poorly-worded content of the ECHR, which makes a false distinction between "restriction of movement" and "restriction of liberty". I note this all the time from left-liberals: they assume that anything with "human rights" in the title must be good. There's an annoying tendency to prefer vague slogans to the details on which liberty rests.

 

[cesare]

A decision that relied upon a 'policy' judgement, and is likely to be torn up once it gets to the ECHR.

Not just that, but pdxm seems to have missed my earlier post where I extracted the relevant parts of the HoL judgment - where proportionality and appropriateness are required in order to rely on such actions being lawful.

 

[editor]

You seem to forget the court decision which said that the sort of cordons employed were lawful. And I take it that "fluffy middle class vegans" have computers? I mean if you look at the website and see details of what to bring along side reams of legal information about what to do when dealing with the police you might call such ill-preparedness something a little bit stronger than "naiviety".

Let me ask you again:

Do you think it is right that persons wishing to exercise their democratic right to peacefully protest on important issues that affect their everyday lives should be expected to put up with being imprisoned and deprived of food, water and sanitation for anything up to 12 hours?

In other words, do you endorse the state's campaign to effectively try and silence protest by making it such an uncomfortable ordeal that many people will be dissuaded from attending?

 

[pdxm]

Let me ask you again:

Do you think it is right that persons wishing to exercise their democratic right to peacefully protest on important issues that affect their everyday lives should be expected to put up with being imprisoned and deprived of food, water and sanitation for anything up to 12 hours?

In other words, do you endorse the state's campaign to effectively try and silence protest by making it such an uncomfortable ordeal that many people will be dissuaded from attending?

No, I think that people wishing to excercise their democratic right to peacefully protest to a reasonable extent such as it doesn't disportionately interfere with the rights of others should exercise judgement and prepare for it, maybe a couple of bottles of water, a packed lunch etc in a rucksack?? I can get through a 14 hour shift with a small packed rucksack and an obligatory donut. As for the toilets, I agree they should have been provided, the first video clearly shows some, perhaps there weren't enough. Maybe the "organisers" should have provided some more???

 

[free spirit]

Not just that, but pdxm seems to have missed my earlier post where I extracted the relevant parts of the HoL judgment - where proportionality and appropriateness are required in order to rely on such actions being lawful.

yep.

having just reread that judgement, I can't help thinking that the climate camp situation may well stand a better chance of being declared illegal if taken to the ECHR than the Mayday 2001 case.

The Climate Camp at the G20 had gone to great lengths to ensure that it was and would remain a peaceful, non-violent protest, without anything other than very minor, temporary damage to property such as chalk slogans, haning banners etc.

They had specifically distanced themselves from the entirely separate g20 meltdown protest, and the nutty professor, calling a distinctly seperate protest in a different location.

AFAIK there had been no violence to either person or property at the climate camp before the kettle was enacted.

The climate camp organisers have a track record over several years of protests that demonstrates their total commitment to non violence, even in the face of extreme police antagonism.

The climate camp had also met with the Metropolitan Police Commanders a few days prior to the protest to discuss the protest, which is something the Mayday organisers hadn't done that was noted in the judgement.

Essentially as far as I can see the police had no justification for the view that the climate camp protest presented an imminent thread of 'breach of the peace' to a degree that would have justified kettling them for a long time.


that's the bit on kettling, but more than that, I can't see any legal justification at all for the polices decision after many hours of kettling them where they had remained peaceful, to then decide to clear the protest using brute force. No way was that decision legal IMO, and I hope the climate camp people have enough about them to challenge both this, and the kettling all the way to the ECHR.