SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
Now you're just making stuff up.
greater manchester police seek water cannon
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
Now you're just making stuff up.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
On current form I'd say one could make a better case for issuing protestors with water cannons to deal with over-zealous and violent police officers. The last major 'public order' situation in this country ended up, as I'm sure you're aware, with the police utterly discredited and the protestors in many cases openly praised for their conduct. The one documented act of quote unquote violence against property occurred in front of police officers who did nothing to stop it.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Arguably, every day all of us step out into the world to go to our jobs we are being attacked by the r/c in the ongoing, millenia old class war.
Depends on your perspective really - I hold it to be true as a principle, but don't tend to put it into 'vocal reality' in my life because, quite frankly, I don't feel exploited or oppressed.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
I quite agree. But that wasn't what I was talking about before. The 'attacks' we suffer in the endless class war are rather too abstract to worry about in this sort of context. The one-sided arms race the police enjoy so much does, however, serve to remind everyone that where more subtle forms of persuasion and coercion fail, there is always violence, the root of all authority, to keep us in line.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think the majority objection to kettling (and FIT/TSG deliberate intimidation) isn't to the idea of having some degree of public order maintained, it's to the apparent intention that police tactics should act as a disincentive to protest in general, no matter how peaceful, organised or morally justified it is.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Well if you want to take on the state you take on the state in all its entirety.No point moaning about it.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
It's more interesting that GMP are asking than the Met. I can't recall any significant unrest in the area in recent times. What exactly are they anticipating.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
that must have taken about five minutes.
i'd imagine its just a followup of the inquiry they will have held after the huns riot of May 2008.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
but for that five minutes, somewhere in the eighteenth century, things were peaceful
if only protestors had not spoiled everything
Don't think it was ever done in Ulster, but I do remember a report in the early 90s on some Paris riot where the CRS refilled their tender from the Seine.
that's practically biological warfare 
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
The likes of Metfilth have been exposed for routine toe-to-toe thuggery, battering innocent people to death, systematic lying and kettling which violates basic human rights.
It's only logical that they will look at stuff like this and seek to keep more distance at public order situations.
I understand UK tradition has been for upfront stuff, this would represent a move to a more European model?
A reminder of what the powers that be are expecting long term:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news
It's only logical that they will look at stuff like this and seek to keep more distance at public order situations.
I understand UK tradition has been for upfront stuff, this would represent a move to a more European model?
A reminder of what the powers that be are expecting long term:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news
They are living in a paranoid fantasy world.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
As are a number of posters on here
I would have thought some mainstream politicians are kinky enough to enjoy getting showered in other people's shit and piss anyway.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
He's referencing a government document from a few years back
david dissadent
New Member
You really have to laugh though. The police come up with this awesome irritating means of detering demonstrations, the kettle. The climate hippies respond by turning up with tents, toilets, sound systems and and guitars to sing to the police (yes that really did happen) and the police so utterly spaz out at their inability to create a riot they start demanding water cannons.
So to completely throw the mets master plan out of the window all you ever needed was a) packed lunch b) non violent responce and c) camera phone.
So to completely throw the mets master plan out of the window all you ever needed was a) packed lunch b) non violent responce and c) camera phone.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sadly though, they do have other methods available ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs
The difficulty is that it's NOT the protestors who spoil anything - there are lots of protests every week (and have been for years here) that pass off without any problem ... the problem comes when there are those who are not satisfied with protesting and who use direct violence (and I would distinguish non-cooperation liking sit downs or whatever from direct violence) and extreme damage (and again I would distinguish petty things like Churchill's turf mohican from looting and setting to Barclays).if only protestors had not spoiled everything
There is simply no way that the police can ignore that level of violence and criminality ... but, when it kicks off, there is no way of only dealing with the violent protestors (especially when it comes to trying to prevent them rampaging off somewhere else because when they're not actually trying to put a barrier through a plate glass window or punch a coppers lights out there is nothing to distinguish them from most of the other protesters.
Yes, there are things that the police could do differently in some areas of policing protest and yes, there are some restrictions on protest that are unnecessary so that needs to be addressed ... but the bottom line is that the principle source of the problem is those intent on violence and mayhem. Stop them and the policing of protest would go back to sweetness and light (relatively speaking) - look at what happened with the policing of football supporters - once the violence fell away (for the most part), policing went back to normal unless there was a specific incident.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the met kicked the shit out of the hippies and forced them off the streets.
Indeed.
You will always get far, far more general support if you can orchestrate a situation in which any police force (even if pretty trivial, like pulling sit-down protestors off a road on to the pavement) is being used against clearly non-threatening protestors than you will when it is clear that the force is being used on someone who is using force themselves (as was the case with many of the G20 examples - I have had loads of people comment on the incident where the sergeant struck the female protestor who was clearly using force / abuse herself that she "deserved it").
Where there is non-violent protest, even where it includes direct action, the police should exercise as much restraint as possible in allowing it to continue for a reasonable period (and that may vary from case to case) even if other people/businesses are put out by it (e.g. the Tamil protest which was allowed to block Westminster Bridge for several hours/days rather than using force to clear the road).
But where direct violence (against police or others), or extreme damage to property is used or threatened the police will always have to intervene as best they can - failure to do so would be a clear dereliction of their duty to preserve the peace and protect other people and their property.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
So, d-b, are you going to reply to any of the points I raised about alternatives to current thinking?
This is an urban myth which has been trotted out constantly for years ... with no proven cases at all.
The police DO use plain clothes officers at protests for intelligence gathering (with care due to H&S concerns) but they most definitely do NOT use them to provoke the crowd. Sometimes, in order to maintain their cover, they may engage in pretty robust protesting (shouting, even pushing a bit) but they would not be allowed to commit any significant offence.
There is potential for individual officers to do stupid and unlawful things - and if a specific allegation is made then it should be fully investigated - but that is very different from it being a corporate policy or tactic. There is also potential for other agencies (the spies) to do stuff the police are unaware of for their own purposes ... but in such cases it is highly unlikely that they would then show out to the police on the cordon line. There is also potential for deep undercover officers, infiltrated into specific groups, to be present and have to do things to maintain their cover but, again, that it different from it being a deliberate, proactive tactic; it is not directly connected with the policing of the protest in that they are not part of the operation itself (unlike the intelligence gatherers mentioned earlier) and, in any event, they would again not be allowed to commit any significant offence (though the complexity of their situation may mean that the line is drawn somewhat higher than for the relatively simple situation the intelligence gatherers are in (where they can simply withdraw far more readily and with far less downside)).
As I've said in another post, the police simply don't have the option of choosing not to protect people and property - it would be a common law offence (malfeasance in public office) for them to do so.
I agree that the police have become too restrictive in trying to intervene in / prevent all types of protest on the basis that they will all result in significant violence and damage. I also agree they should take a step back from being seen as too closely aligned with the targets of protest (e.g. the power station companies). And that a certain level of minor pushing and shoving / damage, etc should be tolerated ... but I think your suggestion that the "mob" should be allowed to do what it wants, in the expectation that nothing too bad will result, is naive in the extreme.
There is a clear line between non-violent protest (which the police should endeavour to permit and facilitate) and serious violence and damage (which they do not have the option of ignoring or permitting).
I entirely disagree that specific, individual violence / serious damage to property can be justified / defended on the basis of generalised, non-violent things that may have happened. This may help explain why it done, it may be mitigation for what is done ... but it is not the police's role (nor should it be) to stand by and go "Oh, OK mate, yeah you've got a point - those bankers bonuses are a bit obscene, crack on and beat that random bank-related cunt to a pulp and set fire to the building. I'll hold your coat if you like ..."
Mayday 2001 (or maybe 2002). At least three incidents that I am personally aware of in which entirely innocent shoppers and or office workers going about their lawful business in the West End were injured by rampaging "protestors". There are lots more that I am aware of (but had no personal involvement with) in all the large-scale disorders that happen.
If you are suggesting that the caring, sharing "protestors" are scrupulous about only attacking specifically identified "guilty" people like bankers, I am afraid you are sadly misguided ...
Similar threads
