Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

When they've collated it all, helped by id info from facebook and the 'I was there' posts on threads like this, the raids will start, followed by charges, bail conditions and discrediting of witnesses.
It's heartening to see some folk can still retain such a touching faith in police omnipotence even now.

And then maybe pre-emptive arrests in advance of Mayday or whenever.
£50 says no.
 
from the article said:
A contributer identifed as Timbo797 wrote: "Not moving when they are told to and instructed to by police officers, who does that?! People who have no respect for the police. I think there is already an underlying basis of no respect for police and authority in this country. I'm not talking about brutal rule, just plain law and order ... Now, I am not condoning 100% what this officer did in pushing Mr Tomlinson, however maybe he shouldn't have been there in the first place if told to move several times by advancing officers?!"

:rolleyes: fuck if this is the type of person we;ve got acting in defence of law and security ...
 
believe me there were worse comments on that particular thread...

Much worse, and as the prevailing (police) view, not the exception. If anyone doubts that the problem is endemic, they should go browse those forums.

Don't bother posting an alternate viewpoint though, it'll just get deleted and result in a trolling ban. :rolleyes:
 
Be interesting to hear the routine conversations * going on amongst Met officers at the moment (some of whom are of course on these boards - openly and otherwise). I'd guess the predominant concern at the moment is exposure - who's going to be identified next, who should be making statements etc (at least for those on duty on the 1st and 2nd April). However I'd also guess there's going to be another theme - picking up on the Gordon Brown comment above. Because if senior Government figures pile in too much on this, there's going to be a "look, you told us to go in hard" type reaction.

Edit: I meant actual conversations, at the level of the station or the shift - not the more general discussions on police forums. At the local, micro level, there's got to be a bit of fear about whether that bit of violence is going to rebound or appear on youtube.
 
A telling quote in that video is the Policeman's response when asked "Do you believe in a free press?"

He replies "The only thing I believe in the papers is the date"

Plus of course asking them to "Do me a favour and go away for half an hour" while quoting an erroneously applied piece of legislation

What I was slightly surprised by in that was that one of the reporters there didn't decide to make a bit of a point of it and refuse to go - with all the other reporters there to film it. OK, maybe they're just like us in that nobody wants to be the one sticking their head up above the parapet too far, but I'd have thought there could have been one hell of a story in an illegal arrest of a journo on film...

Or am I being somehow naive here?
 
cut and paste some of what they are writing
Sub-seven
Yesterday, 04:49 PM
Post #1


Assistant Chief Constable


Group: Members
Posts: 1,725
Joined: 3-September 07
From: The naughty step...
Member No.: 17,396



How many more will come in now they are smelling the money.

Where there's blame , there's a claim.

lovely
WellAdvised
Yesterday, 04:52 PM
Post #3


Chief Inspector


Group: Members
Posts: 646
Joined: 26-December 07
Member No.: 19,325



QUOTE (Sub-seven @ Apr 18 2009, 01:49 PM)
How many more will come in now they are smelling the money.

Where there's blame , there's a claim.



15264256.jpg



gollum.jpg




Is it just me?


--------------------

Safety is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your hands


More excellence eh?




Assistant Chief Constable


Group: Members
Posts: 1,725
Joined: 3-September 07
From: The naughty step...
Member No.: 17,396



I'm just waiting on the complaint coming in from the member of the public who had his stick head-butted by that nasty Officer....
:rolleyes:



Assistant Chief Constable


Group: Resident Fed
Posts: 1,735
Joined: 2-September 04
From: sussex
Member No.: 5,424



and yet the police officer covered in blood from a head injury probably wouldnt get more than £5 for his story. probably not as exciting


and the coup de gras


Inspector


Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 3-November 06
Member No.: 12,374



Of course a shield strike is an approved tactic, in prison tactics striking with the sharp edge of the shield as hard as you can is the way to do it but this was nowhere near as bad.

Lets not forget not one innocent member of the public has been the subject of these G20 news stories. We have the abusive, aggressive, obstructive drunk. Swearing, abusive, agressive Gollum and this aggressive idiot who is unneccessarily close to Police
 
What I was slightly surprised by in that was that one of the reporters there didn't decide to make a bit of a point of it and refuse to go - with all the other reporters there to film it. OK, maybe they're just like us in that nobody wants to be the one sticking their head up above the parapet too far, but I'd have thought there could have been one hell of a story in an illegal arrest of a journo on film...

Or am I being somehow naive here?

Journalists generally try not to make the story about themselves. The NUJ would protest afterwards, but they'd probably not cover the story much.
 
Police oracle is still open to all. Lots of similar stuff on there.

http://www .policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11474&PN=30

This has probably been said before but none of the 185 people who complained about being 'assaulted' would have had the opportunity to do so if only they had MOVED BACK when told to do so. Call me naiive but I would not choose to bait police dogs, deliberately delay when asked to move by police in an obvious public order situation, or keep returning into the personal space of a baton-wielding cop when being told to shift out of the way.

If only the top echelons of the Met had the balls to say to the headline-hungry press bandwagon, "The police on the ground did a good job. If people moved when we told them to then none of this would have happened. (And P.S. to the MP who was on TV today questioning why police officers wore 'balaclavas' - as though to remain anonymous- IT'S STANDARD FIRE PROTECTION! Now shut up and get your own house in order!"
 
It is interesting to note that the issue of the missing numbers has been almost ignored apart from saying that Sargent Backhander might have left them in his other knickers when he got ready for the ball. :hmm:

ETA - I do find it rather cute that the mod has had to lock the thread due to flaming :D
 
And yet Police Oracle is still full of arrogant, above-the-law, class-sneering comments and desparate attempts to justify their actions, together with self-pitying crap about press distortion and how unfairly they're being treated.

I wasn't ACAB before all this. I've met some who seemed alright, and so hoped it was confined to particular forces/units. But it's not, it's an all-pervading culture, and not one copper has stepped forward to condemn it. So now; ACAB.
No, really, I think it's more some coppers are bastards (SCAB? :)), but the culture within the police force is one of omerta as far as showing dissent towards the macho stuff goes, so a large proportion of the force get tarred with the same brush as the dodgy 10% who deserve it, and can't (or won't) speak out. If anything needs changing, I reckon it's that. Somehow *shrug*
 
No, really, I think it's more some coppers are bastards (SCAB? :)), but the culture within the police force is one of omerta as far as showing dissent towards the macho stuff goes, so a large proportion of the force get tarred with the same brush as the dodgy 10% who deserve it, and can't (or won't) speak out. If anything needs changing, I reckon it's that. Somehow *shrug*
That, to me, is what ACAB means. It's not a comment on the nature of individual officers so much as the institution as a whole. If ACAB were not true, officers involved on 1-3 April would have been reported by colleagues long before the video footage came out. None of them were.

ACAB.
 
Or indeed officers at the time would have (for example) (a) prevented a fellow officer from attacking Ian Tomlinson from behind, or (b) assisted Ian Tomlinson after such an attack, and/or (c) apprehended the officer who carried out such an attack.
 
On the other hand... getting the principle established that cops have a duty to report their law-breaking colleagues...

That'd be quite groundbreaking. Bleeding obvious, yes: but what's hapened over the past 3 weeks is that lots of bleeding obvious things have become sayable at last.

And I suspect the IPCC would be up for it. As, possibly, would yer man Flanagan in his inquiry what the Met asked him to hold, hoping to get the heat off.

Plod wants me to be submissive?

* Drafts submission *
 
That, to me, is what ACAB means. It's not a comment on the nature of individual officers so much as the institution as a whole. If ACAB were not true, officers involved on 1-3 April would have been reported by colleagues long before the video footage came out. None of them were.

ACAB.

Absolutely.

A culture of omerta as agnes puts it, is no excuse whatsoever. Show some spine, speak out, and lay down your warrant in the process if necessary.

But no one does. ACAB.
 
Back
Top Bottom