Be Excellent To Each Other

Well, I'd expect them to know enough about that sort of thing to know what the hell to do in that sort of situation. However, the real dangerous nutters seem to be actively avoided, because the coppers don't know how to deal with the loon with the weapons. They do seem to know how to kick the shit out of the normal protestors.

^ basically, that.

(For a more in-depth answer, I'd need to consult my criminology textbooks. Which I'm not sure I still have. )

There is an element of cunt in the police force, some of them like a fight as much as the wankers on the other side who are smashing and throwing things around.

I always remember the amount of happy looking gun touting police who came from all over the UK once they had cornered Raoul Moat. It was like they were at a barbecue, I mean how many police with semi-automatic weapons do you need to supress a cornered nutter with a shot gun?

Frankly, if water cannon and baton guns are on the menu for next time, I'd fully expect the anarchists to go in toting Molotov cocktails, bricks and crowbars. The Met is already talking to Northern Ireland about this stuff, apparently. It won't end well, the police need to stop being taped beating the shit out of people who have simply got in the way.

It's instructive to watch the episode of Coppers where this comes up, from the police's point of view, but even in that there were some worrying opinions on show. OTT violence does need to be challenged and they should not be tooling up and adopting a war footing, it's just not helpful. IMO.

This isn't about them using suitable force if the situation merits it. No-one is arguing about that. This is about them being trained professionals who are not, under even these circumstances, expected to wade in against other non violent demonstrators because they're scared, overwhelmed, frustrated or whatever. If they give up the moral high ground, regardless of them being human, they lose all their authority. I do have sympathy for them, but unless there are extenuating circumstances it is not acceptable for them to interact violently at all.

For the simple reason that it will only make the mob worse, they are outnumbered, violence will beget violence and the situation will escalate. And in any enquiry, it will come back to the simple fact that it is not their job to beat people up, under pretty much any circumstances.

And, this is a particularly tricky one as they're working against youths who are probably fit, idealistic and will bear a grudge. Yes, they have a sucky job dealing with this, but deal with it they must and come out of it squeaky clean is part of their remit.

So, yes I agree with force to restrain and/or incapacitate individuals if they're under direct threat or the situation warrants it — yes I accept that it is difficult in the heat of the moment, but collateral damage has to be avoided at all costs, for their reputation in the eyes of the public as guardians of the law.

Polis or protester, somebody's going to end up deid (again)

I agree, to be honest. The police actually did a pretty good job of containing things last time - yes, damage was done, but given the number of people, the events going on nearby, and the amount of aggro we saw, I think that was inevitable. The worst thing the police could do is come on even stronger next time - this is not going to be the last bout of protesting against the government by a long stretch, and if the police decide to up the ante, they'll do more harm than good. They need to realise that they're not going to win a propaganda war against a movement in which every single member can talk to everyone in the world instantly, from anywhere, and doesn't need to wait for permission from their boss first.

See, I'm of the opinion that the worst thing they could do is not turn up. I'm fucked if I'd take their place.

Yes, clearly, they shouldn't be "kicking the shit out of" anybody. But I honestly can't how situations like the protests the other day can be handled in a non-violent way.

Haha, fair point. But I dunno, that might be pretty funny to see. 200 shit-stirrers charge to the front, find no resistance, and then shrug and go home. Perhaps one will sling a coke can, just so it wasn't a complete waste of a day.



Mmm, again, that's kind of what I meant. Yes, I'm sure some of what they did was bang out of order, and a too-large minority of the cops there were twatting anyone when it really wasn't called for. And yeah, maybe they did provoke a bit, too. But people were going to get hurt that day, there were too many people there out to cause trouble to avoid it, and the police couldn't just let them do it.

I'd rather they didn't test that near my house.


One, then.

The Home Secretary & the heid of ACPO appear to be contradicting each other.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 59410.html


Still... at least it's no Jacqui fucking Smith, she'd be trying to tell us how ID cards would stop violent protesters AND violent polis

Lovely thought from Keith R Mitchell



Good job he isn't in a position of power like, say, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council...

They should give the police supersoakers. Let's see people keep up a serious destructive attitude when men in full riot gear pull out large luminous water pistols en masse and give all those norty protesters a mild dampening.

Nah, they should just get it over with & send in the SAS.

This is true in x number of cases but walking up "Nine floors; eighteen flights of stairs." would set off huge comedy awwoga sirens at the DLA offices. I've filled in the forms for my lad and there is a specific question for walking up stairs and if I'd put yes he can walk up 18 flights of stairs on his own or even partially aided, bang that's the transport element gone.

Touchy subject for me, wheelchairs are a pain in the arse in general and the DLA people make you fill out your own bodyweight in forms so I'm not going to react too kindly to Mr I quit school at 18 and went to Goa to find myself now I'm a "activist" please read my anarchy poetry while I use the wheelchair I don't seem to need as bait in protests.

I went to Goa to find myself. When I was on a beach, in a sari, having had the most amazing drugs and watching the most incredible sunset, I must admit, I did find myself. I suddenly realised "I'm a dick. I'm a complete dick. On a beach. In a sari."

I found myself waking up at a private beach on the Gulf of Oman on New Year's Day. I did the decent thing: Had a couple of cigarettes, and shared a bottle of Chablis at the edge of the sea with this lass. I then called my driver who picked me up. She had a stunning red dress, and I've been a sucker for them ever since. And Chabils.

I think I found myself then.

I've read that book, its a good laugh.

Yeah, the more tooled up the police are, the more tooled up the nutters are going to be, until it reaches the point where the only place for the coppers to go is firearms, and no-one wants Bloody Sunday 2: Electric Boogaloo.

The disappointing thing about all this is that the majority of people at these protests were peaceful, they have the right to protest, its the Police's job to protect that right, yet the Police approached the whole thing with a confrontational attitude. Hey guys, you're supposed to protect the normal people, not Prince Charlie and his loathsome hag-woman, they have enough money to protect themselves.

If I had a job that involved me getting punched in the face by cunts to stop other people getting punched in the face by cunt, and then had to come home and read in the media (or on the Internet, of course) about how it was my fault that the cunt punched me in the face (written by, of course, the people who weren't getting punched in the face by cunts), I'm pretty damn sure I wouldn't go to work again.

Is it? There wasn't anyone out there trying to stop people protesting, was there?

A properly peaceful protest doesn't need the police at all, so the reason the police are there is to deal with those who want to turn it from a peaceful march into a violent encounter.

It's certainly open to debate about whether they go about it the right way, or whether certain of them take it past the line from policing to deliberate confrontation. What's not open to debate is that they are there because of the risk of the protests turning into vandalism and violence.

Containment basically prevents the protest - and given that the containment of demos in London is basically pre-planned by the police now you can see why some people sound off about the police being political.

What you end up with is a bunch of people penned in by the police. That's not a protest.

Poof

Ignoring the fact that there's an agreed route set up before the protests start - why not?

But again we come back to the fact that many many protest marches with far more people come off without any need for that action by the police. So are they stopping the protest, or stopping the protest from getting out of hand? Not saying the method is a good one, but still.

Would have been far better.

Except, of course, that not only was a lot of the stuff written in the papers about policemen hitting non-cunts in the face written by people who witnessed it happening, a number of journalists get hammered as well, a la G20.

I still don't see why, in order to prevent the cunts from being cunts, the police need to attack innocent people.

Example:



Collateral damage isn't in the police's remit, for fuck's sake.



I should have thought that was rather obvious.

Really? How many? The only example I've heard you come up with was the stop the war one. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the police didn't go to that one already tooled up and prevent them from marching.

Too far fetched.

'The stop the war one'? There's been about 20 over the last decade, and not a single one of them has involved violence.

And the police don't go there to stop them from marching. As Grim... said, they agree a route with the protest organisers. They only get stopped if they deviate from that route, because the police need to be able to keep it contained if violence does break out.

Countryside Alliance, off the top of my head.


Why do you suddenly seem to think that all the "students" were penned in? The route was set, and most of them followed it.

To be honest, I'm more concerned with the amount of overtime claimed by the police covering these protests as most of it it spent sitting in a van down a backstreet smoking fags and drinking coffee.

Citation needed.



Apparently the police diverted them into a kettling area from the agreed route. I'm trying to find the link but I distinctly recall reading that on the Guardian.

Also, fuck off with "agreed routes". Lawful assembly, innit.

In fairness, it becomes a protest pretty quickly, but not about the original issue.

When the protest organisers and the police get together to agree a route to ensure that the protest comes off effectively and safely, then it's not a violation of freedom of lawful assembly. It's common fucking sense and not being a dick.

And they can only do it if there's a proper chance of it going riot style quickly. As you well know.

Yeah, at around 2pm. Obviously no-one was throwing Molotov cocktails before that.


Gospal.


Right up to the violence and criminal damage.

2pm isn't too early for cocktails, ever.

Molotov cocktails? Really? Could you provide a link for that? Bottles of piss and paint, I believe it was, according to both the Guardian and that police blog. Not nice, obviously, but suggesting it was molotov cocktails is ridiculously inflammatory, if you'll pardon the pun - I'd not read that anywhere. Happy to be corrected, obviously.


Gospal.[/quote]

Well, I'll take a reporter's view on it. The Guardian aren't known for actively lying about things.


Right up to the violence and criminal damage.[/quote]
Was everyone there doing that, or was it a small minority, as ACPO themselves have said?

Let's just take it as read that you support everything the police do, and that you see no problem with the police preventing lawfully behaving people from protesting, collectively imprisoning innocent people, and attacking innocent people because they get in the way and leave it there.

How about we don't, given that's completely made up?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ead_1292023263
Also, are you suggesting that it's okay to throw piss and paint at people?


How long have you been a member of the BNP now?

Blocked at work - is that before 2pm? I know there were some flamey bits in the evening shots I saw, but I didn't think it had happened before they got kettled.


EDIT - your bloody editing.



Of course I'm not. Can't you read? It's assault and battery (as per the custard on Mandelson that Mali got into trouble over with Stu) but it's hardly in the same fucking league as cutprice napalm..


The same length of time as you've been beating your wife, if we're being like that

Saw an interview with that Jody kid on youtube, it was some daytime BBC news programme, with particularly obtuse questioning.
Not read his blog or anything but I've got to say he earned a bit of respect there.

Except that's not true, of course.

I haven't seen that. I have read his blog though, and he's a proper cock.

Wearing heavy riot gear, getting hot, irritable, and in a foul mood when they are let out to face the protesters, no doubt.

I'm getting very old-fashioned but I think our police should wear smart tunics, rather than all this pseudo-military stuff. Might make them look less openly aggressive.

Unless he was kettled on Westminster bridge with lots of space around him, I suspect it was just because he was a cunt.
Basically, in the vid, "student" takes a huge run up and lobs his flaming bottle over the crowd. One of the "proper" protesters grabs him, and a fair number of them are shouting "what the fuck are you doing?", but, rather tellingly, an even larger number are shouting "let him go", which they do.


I beat your wife. But it's okay, as she was stood in the doorway I wanted to get through at the time.

The students don't do themselves any favours with who they let on the cameras, mind. Did anyone see the "anarchist leader", "Che", giving an interview on channel 4, I think it was, the other day saying that the government ought to listen to the people? So she's an anarchist and a democrat. Awesome.

And named after a murderer. Bless.

The articulate, smart ones wouldn't make good news though, would they?

They had the short shields and open face masks this time after complaints that the full-body riot shields looked aggressive. But, of course, short shields aren't as good at stopping stuff hitting you.

The simple solution is to paint flowers on the uniforms

Whilst I agree that closed-face helmet do make them look more aggressive, I'm pretty sure they need them, more for the anonymity than anything else (although I do think they should display their numbers).