butchersapron
Bring back hanging
police mutiny
Weds 1st April: G20 protests - discussion, reaction and chat
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Even so, I'd say that the selection of quotes the Guardian has used there is pretty tame, especially when compared to some of the stuff we've seen on here. I realise that there's bound to be a certain amount of selectivity on both sides, but I think the Guardian's given them a pretty easy ride!
Well yeah. They could've printed the stuff about wanting to burn the protesters alive!
You can't.
The whole thing might just be an elaborate front set up to misrepresent itself as a board full of police officers expressing views about their job and their clientele.
Who said anything about "the whole thing"? It is likely that most are linked to the police, but there doesn't seem to be anything stopping random people signing up to that forum and spouting off anything they want to. You could easily therefore get people trolling, fantasist wanna-bes mouthing off or even police-haters who want to discredit the forum by posting extreme stuff. You therefore need to discount a certain percentage of what is said.
Re. "They could've printed the stuff about wanting to burn the protesters alive!"
...given that there doesn't seem to be any way of verifying who people actually are, perhaps The Guardian chose 'typical' rather than 'extreme' quotes?
It wouldn't surprise me at all if a serving officer posted that.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
The Guardian quotes are all about the police justifying their actions (and is trying to paint them in a reasonable light).
IIRC, the guy who was happy to burn the protesters alive actually said this as a preface to criticism of the way the police behaved. He is one of the more reasonable voices on that board!
Well, you're always going to have problems with individual quotes, and maybe that's why the Guardian was playing it safe. OTOH, I'd say that the "burn them alive" quote wasn't an isolated one - there was a clear attitude on that board (and not just from what Corax et al have quoted us) of disdain and hostility towards protesters. Moderators of the board were involved in some of those threads, and weren't giving the impression of wanting to distance themselves from such views - quite the contrary.
So I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable view to take that many of the more extreme (if not the most extreme) views being shown on the boards were representative of the opinions of the boards and their moderators. Whether that means they're representative of the police in general is another matter, but my view is that even if those boards only repreent a proportion of serving police officers, the attitudes they're espousing are a cause for concern.
I've just spent about an hour reading most of the G20 thread there and IMO quotes about 'burning people' aren't representative - far more typical are justifications of using batons and shields etc.
newbie
undisambiguated
mirror, mirror on the wall.... I don't suppose anyone has called for them to burned alive, but there are plenty of anti-police sentiments on this and other threads hereabouts, with posting credibility bolstered through the use of abuse, particularly if a post contains any form of approval of police tactics.
I didn't say it was representative. I said it "wasn't an isolated one": there have been quite a few quotes of a similar ilk, in that they seem to be happily advocating far more violent actions against protesters. I can see the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't help to misrepresent the other viewpoints, which I think you're in danger of doing here.
It's true that I did say
which perhaps you're taking to mean that I considered the "burn 'em" view to be representative of the viewpoints expressed - I'll admit I could have made that clearer.
What I meant there was that the range of views being expressed on those boards, apparently with tacit moderator approval, must therefore represent the overall attitude of that community...otherwise there'd be someone challenging them - much as we're doing right now on here - or taking them down!
Feh. I think that there has been a fairly balanced set of viewpoints on here, and nobody has advocated any kind of extreme (to the lengths of spraying petrol on them and setting fire to them) violence towards the police.
In fact, I'm quite pleasantly surprised at how moderate, overall, the views towards the police have been on here, considering. Are you sure you're reading the same thread as the rest of us?
newbie
undisambiguated
Feh, indeed. I've just read a post suggesting they should be crucified....
that's the way conversations are constructed on the internet, with graphic and ott imagery, because subtlety is lost in the chaff. It doesn't mean anything particularly literal, either here or on oracle.
Tbh yeah, that is fair enough.
The opionions aired on those police forums are still pretty disturbing regardless.
Yes, especially when you consider that these are people posting opinions like that in connection with a job they have - the job of "keeping the Queen's peace".
No doubt there will be those along to explain how it's impossible to keep the Queen's Peace without backhanding tiny women across the face, shoving bystanders violently to the ground, and all other other little vignettes of violence we've had the privilege of watching lately...
winjer
holocene death beat
Oh looky:
"We were doing our job, we were doing what we were told and we were getting on with it and we were doing exactly what we were trained to do. If you don't agree with the training then fine, but don't try and persecute us for doing what we are trained to do just because you don't like how it looks. If you can come up with a better method of crowd control that doesn't require a significant increase in force with stand off shield lines, CS grenades, baton rounds, live bullets and water cannon then please share your wisdom. If not then stop talking shit."
'Metcountymounty' (his this blog) commenting here:
http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/your-numbers-up_20.html
And on his own comments, about clearing climate camp:
"The reason we cleared the camp was because of the hundreds of people who were watched attacking officers and property who then buggered off to the camp after being released from the cordon at several points during the day. The climate camp served it's purpose of taking a street for the day and making a nice commune in the middle of the city to raise the point, it also became a refuge for people who had nothing but violent intent and it was completely unacceptable to let it remain. [...] We asked nicely, they chose to stay there, tough shit as far as I'm concerned. If anyone feels that we were heavy handed then quite frankly they had seen nothing compared to what was originally planned that night, let alone what we could really role out if need be and they were given numerous chances to go peacefully."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2136725710155499318&postID=5778817763515688429
Newbie, you have taken that "crucified" comment grievously out of context. That was a response - I took it as a sort of parody - to a vicious and provocative comment made by one of the people on the Police Oracle forum. To compare that quick aside with the very clear statement made about setting fire to protestors makes your debating position, at the least, rather suspect, I think.
newbie
undisambiguated
I don't see much point in arguing about this. Your position seems to be that on these boards everything posted is 'fairly balanced' but that some cop who says if you don't support me I'll throw my toys out the pram is being 'vicious and provocative''.
Of course the 'crucified' post wasn't a serious statement of intent any more than the petrol post on oracle was. good grief. It's just posturing- people with better language skills than me using graphic imagery to convey a point. There's nothing wrong with that, here or there, but there's equally no point in dwelling on the imagery.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
If you're paid by the people you are supposed to serve, throwing that sort of imagery round is far from acceptable.
Well, that's one reading of what I've said. I'd argue that it's a pretty bloody slanted reading, but there we go.
Let's just agree to differ and let the thread carry on.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
I don't see why it should be considered unacceptable, on an own-time, non-official website. I might not like the sentiments being expressed or the people expressing them or the job that binds them together, but I don't see how policing what police officers say off the clock serves any practical purpose.
The issue of policing being endemic with blind eye-turning, Big Billy Big Balls macho canteen culture, rabidly reactionary views, I'm-so-misunderstood-and-hard-done-by martyr complexes, anti-democratic values, highly politicised policy and your basic triptych of lying, dishonesty and cooked reports will no more be solved by 'not accepting' 'that sort of imagery' than bulletin boards in general can miraculously become havens of zen-like balance with the implementation of word filters.
If attitudes and opinions are left unchecked, then language will find ways to reflect those attitudes and opinions, regardless. And those attitudes and opinions are fruit borne of policy, training and deployment.
Well it gives you an insight into their rather worrying collective psychology.
I can't agree with that. Do they get trained to use exessive violence towards non-violent protesters? Is that a policy handed down from the top?
No. The violence we saw was police officers out of control. Disregarding policy and training. Imo.
I think Dave may be talking about a more indirect effect of the training. It is certainly true to say that there is a big element of machismo inherent in police culture, and my guess - anyone more informed than I want to substantiate this? - is that that machismo is present in the training and existing police culture that new recruits are exposed to.
From the machismo comes the "them and us" stuff, and the general disdain for those that aren't part of the exclusive police club.
winjer
holocene death beat
If it's not, why would they (and Nick Hardwick) keep claiming that it is?
Similar threads
