Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by fractionMan, Dec 2, 2010.
don't you think you're being rather restrained? again.
It was intentional.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying (and it's not a law which is restricted to the police - the law of self-defence extends in exactly the same way to everyone).
If you remember the Sgt Smellie case from G20, the force used was (a) more significant and (b) apparently less justifiable (as well as looking even worse) ... but a Court decided that his defence that it was not excessive was sufficiently made out to result in an acquittal.
that and the victim not giving evidence in somewhat suspicious circumstances
That clip shows a little bit more of what happened and suggests that it could well be considered excessive - there doesn't appear to be anything to justify him acting so significantly more aggressively than the other officers nor anything to suggest why that / those particular protestor(s) merited a higher level of force being used ... but it is still only a few seconds and you would need to know a lot more of the lead up to draw a definitive conclusion. And whether or not it would amount to so clearly excessive, as compared to what would have been justifiable in the circumstances (such as several robust pushes in the chest) is a moot point (s.76 Criminal Justice and |Immigration Act 2008, in repeating the Common Law on the use of force, points out (s.76(7)(a)) that it is not possible to "weigh to a nicety" the amount of force used in the heat of the moment) (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/conten...3479635&ActiveTextDocId=3479739&filesize=6376)
Personally, if the officer was one of mine, I would at the very least want a detailed explanation for what is apparent and have a, er, meaningful discussion with him about not only the lawfulness of the use of force but also how it will be perceived (at the time and subsequently) and the impact that it has on the bigger issue of police / public interaction. I would also be monitoring future conduct closely and if it became apparent that this was his default approach he would be getting moved somewhere for his own giood as well as everyone else's.
That cannot be justified - there may be some occasions where there is little or no time for people to move of their own free will but it certainly should be the exception not the rule. One thing that has puzzled me over the last few years is that the police don't appear to have been trying to improve communication with the crowds - using loud hailers or whatever. Every police vehicle has had PA built in for years now and so there is lots immediately available (and modern electronic technology has made readily portable loudhailers far more powerful than they used to be.
If it is necessary to move a crowd back or clear a street then I cannot see any reason why normally it would not be possible to tell the crowd what was happening first. If nothing else it would allow those who wanted to avoid getting involved in anything heaver the opportunity of getting out.
I actually wrote a reply but the thread was closed before I could post it. IT was:
If you "go down that route" then you can indeed justify anything, even killing ... which, strangely enough, is the law of self-defence ... which allows the use of fatal force in defence of yourself or another (regardless of whether or not you are a police officer) if that is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances that you honestly believed them to be. How could you justify that not being the law?
by a court ruling or parliamentary legislation stating that such was not the case
No. No more than rank and file officers believe they should all be routinely armed.
The thing is, however, if you keep criticising the use of officers forcing people back / holding a line physically; criticising all use of horses, etc. you will force the police to stop doing that and they will inevitably have to bring in alternative means of controlling crowds such as using water cannon, CS, etc.
It is simply naive to think that the police will be allowed to permit disorderly crowds to rampage about, attacking anyone they don't like the look of, destroying and damaging property at will. If protests continue to erupt into significant violence then there will continue to be robust policing and the use of preventative tactics (such as containment). Personally I do not think what happened at Millbank justified the "crackdown" a couple of weeks later ... but it most certainly did for a big swathe of our society and the things that have happened since will have confirmed their views (and convinced significant numbers more).
It's Territorial Support Group (the Met is split into Territorial policing (i.e. the geographical divisions) and Specialist policing (i.e. Yard based stuff, must (but not all) CID)). The TSG provide support to Territorial divisions when something is happening in their area which they do not have the local resources to deal with.
As this frequently (but not always) involves public order policing TSG officers are trained to a much higher level in public order tactics (and similar tactics, such as making forced entries into premises, removing violent people from premises, etc.) than ordinary divisional officers (who form what are called Level 2 serials (i.e. units trained to a lower level) who are also used on protests (and who frequently form the initial deployment in street duty helmets, being replaced by the TSG (in full public order gear) only if / when things degenerate into violence)).
They also spend an awful lot more time dealing with public disorder than the average divisional officer. This aspect in particular makes them prone to become distant from the public, to become very cynical about protestors and to forget what ordinary interaction with the public is. For this reason the TSG needs very robust and proactive management and supervision of it's officers and frequent reviews of officers attitudinal suitability to continue on that duty. I am not at all sure that those measures are in place or are sufficiently applied.
Twenty years ago, when corruption in the CID was an extensive problem it was decided that officers would be moved around their postings at regular intervals (between 3 and 5 years) and that there would be "interchange" back to uniform for a short period (1-2 years) when a DC was promoted to Sgt or a DS to Insp. I can see absolutely no reason why such a policy should not be applied to the TSG (lots of officers move on anyway, for one reason or another, after 3-5 years - this would ensure that those who choose to stay and who particularly enjoy policing public disorder (and who are arguably the most prone to lose perspective / become over aggressive) are forced to move on before any problem can develop).
And people wonder why we cheer when scum like Blakelock or Fletcher get what they deserve
Sorry, why did they deserve to die?
Where a police line is static, but receiving pressure from a crowd trying either to break through it or push it back, it is a recognised tactic to push forward a short distance (usually 25-30 yards or so) and then fall back. If this is repeated periodically it can have the effect of relieving the pressure on the line and / or maintain some distance between the line and the main body of protestors. It certainly helps prevent a massive block of protestors building up, many deep, in front of the police line which then becomes pretty much impossible to move or disperse without very significant levels of force.
It's not bollocks. Go and read The Register article. IT (not the police) states that "our advice" says the police can arrest under s.1 PACE / s.44 Terrorism Act. What did or didn't happen in the case you refer to is irrelevant.
Bless em lol Maybe a good slap round the face would stimulate some interaction?
Too fuckin' right they're not!
You know, pissing about with technicalities really does you no favours whatsoever. The crux of the matter is an abuse of position.
It won't say anything at all. It will refer to the use of force. It will refer to the need for any force used to be lawful (i.e. for a lawful reason such as self-defence, making of an arrest or prevention of a breach of the peace) and to be proportionate / reasonable / necessary (i.e. the amount used must be reasonable in the circumstances).
It will reflect the law (essentially Common Law helpfully repeated in s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/conten...3479635&ActiveTextDocId=3479739&filesize=6376
It will explain that the individual officer must make an individual decision and will be individually accountable.
It will NOT mention any particular act (such as punching people) as being specifically "banned" (though it may highlight the dangers associated with any particular act and it may suggest that it should not be used as a matter of course. Any specific, general ban on, e.g., using a punch would be likely to be ruled as ultra vires (i.e. in excess of their power to order) by the Courts if it was brought to judicial review.
The reason for the baseball caps (as opposed to the uniform flat caps / beat duty helmets previously used before riot helmets could be justified) is that when the need arises to put on riot helmets they can be folded up and put in a pocket (unlike uniform flat caps / beat duty helmets). This means officers can be deployed with their riot helmets (hanging from their belts) and, if the thing kicks off they can immediately put on riot helmets rather than having to be replaced by other officers weraing them as has been the case previously.
(No idea about the pastel colour scheme though ...)
Maybe the Tory blue has faded after a wash?
Scum of the earth.
No thanks, I'm getting the bus.
You assume that they do. That is not accepted by all parties at all. It is not reflected in footage of what actually happens (such as the footage at Millbank a couple of weeks ago). You simply refuse to see that. You should go back and read the blog by Guerilla Photographer - it plainly demonstrates that crowd kick off in some way, police respond is the repeated sequence of events ...
You know, totally missing the fucking point really does you no favours whatsoever. It's absolutely fuck all to do with any "technicality" - I quoted something that The Register had written (which was bollocks) and someone came back with some specific case in which the police had apparently misused the powers. Get a grip.
Not sure that Yvonne Fletcher deserved to chew a bullet, purely for being Old Bill.
Wouldn't surprise me ... there's a problem with the black combat style trousers being issued in some forces which fade to a sort of sad grey after only a handful of washes ... so officers have been told to avoid washing them too often ...
You disgusting pig.
'Black combat' you say? Hmmm
Separate names with a comma.