Yet more police brutality

[detective-boy]

Yes its a prejeudicial 'figure of speech' - which you have used again in the next sentence - such prejeudicial abuse about those with mental health issues is not big nor clever... .

OK. She's fucking stupid. Happy now?

 

[The Black Hand]

OK. She's fucking stupid. Happy now?

Those poor people....

 

[shave]

Indymedia is classic! It's news for people with no opinions. I haven't read such condescending stuff in ages!

 

[The Black Hand]

Indymedia is classic! It's news for people with no opinions. I haven't read such condescending stuff in ages!

Au contraire - the people posting up on it have lots of diverse opinions...

 

[shave]

For people with no opinions of their own, I meant.

 

[shave]

double post

 

[TAE]

If it had happened in the UK I cannot see any way in whihc it could be justified and I would expect the officer to be tried and convicted of at least common assault and possible attempted or actual ABH (depending on injuries sustained).

And I would expect that you would argue that the police ask nicely first and only use violence as a last resort as the video only shows a small fraction of what took place. You would probably also insult the assaulted individual in some way. Just going on past (and present) postings here.

 

[winjer]

So why the fuck did they cover the woman arrested for reading outthe list of war dead, then? EXACTLY the same political point. But she did it in a sensible way which meant she did not have to lie and exaggerate to prove her point.

How were the actions of Maya Evans so different?

Was it sensible simply because she informed the police in advance?

 

[winjer]

What is described there is pretty standard tactics for a resisted arrest. People are held - if they struggle they are held by more than one officer. If possible they are held against something such as a wall or (in this case) railings.

Having seen her arrested several times I can safely say she has never resisted arrest. She's accused in the police statements of having attacked the officers involved before they tried to arrest her, not resisting.

 

[winjer]

its not torture, its hardly brutality and the usual 'shocked' responses are as depressing as ever. There are enough problems in this country without deciding its a police state or not a representative democracy cos one woman was arrested for doing something she knew would get her arrested.

So, you're still of the opinion that this is a "representative democracy"?

 

[winjer]

I cannot even start to understand why the fuck she gets the arse about getting arrested. She clearly goes to where she goes purely and simply to get fucking arrested. What is her problem? If it is the law which prevents her lawfully protesting there, why fight the fucking police who will (as she well knows) come and arrest her. If they fucking ignored her she would just have to go and think up something more provocative.

No, she does not, she applied several months for permission for an ongoing demonstration, a la Brian Haw, and the police failed to respond, which has been acknowledged privately, including when Superintendent Terry of Charing X invited her in to discuss how to resolve the situation, and asked her to sign a new application to demonstrate. Her politics and tactics may be naive, but she most certainly is not just out to get arrested.

 

[detective-boy]

Was it sensible simply because she informed the police in advance?

No. It was that they both knew that they were acting in a way which was defined as an offence; that the police would, sooner or later, be provoked into dealing with that offence; that they would resist any request to desist or go away; that the police would eventually be left with no option but to arrest them and that that is what they were trying to bring about.

But Maya Evans, when the arrest came, gave only symbolic resistance (no doubt reasoning that she had no individual grievance with the individual officer who was simply doing their job) whilst this muppet started a massive fight, leading the them (and possibly the officers) getting injured, and then whinged about getting arrested. What did she think would happen? That the police would just go "Ok, then" and go away when she refused to stop committing an offence?

 

[detective-boy]

And I would expect that you would argue that the police ask nicely first and only use violence as a last resort as the video only shows a small fraction of what took place. You would probably also insult the assaulted individual in some way. Just going on past (and present) postings here.

I would alwasy expect the police to do that because (a) it is common sense and (b) it is the law.

But what I would not expect is for you to be able to recognise that I often post all sorts of diffrent views in all sorts of different situations.

Unlike knee-jerk reaction twats like you.

 

[detective-boy]

She's accused in the police statements of having attacked the officers involved before they tried to arrest her, not resisting.

I'm sorry, I don't see how you draw any significant distinction?

 

[winjer]

I'm sorry, I don't see how you draw any significant distinction?

Her resisting arrest might be believable, but that isn't what the officers on the ground claim happened, they claim an unprovoked attack, which is just laughable.

 

[detective-boy]

No, she does not, she applied several months for permission for an ongoing demonstration, a la Brian Haw, and the police failed to respond, which has been acknowledged privately,

If that is the case then she should succeed in her complaint and any civil action. But I still do not see what line of reasoning she has which justifies a physical fight with officers enforcing the law as they would know it when she must have known full well that, rightly or wrongly, she had not been granted permission.

 

[detective-boy]

Her resisting arrest might be believable, but that isn't what the officers on the ground claim happened, they claim an unprovoked attack, which is just laughable.

I'm not sure that anyone who wasn't there can say that. The evidence will be presented to the Court and they will decide whether the allegation is "laughable" or not.

I certainly wouldn't find it that unbelievable if the officers claim they were attacked at a pint where it would have been obvious to her that they were approaching her with a view to dealing with her actions (as opposed to if they claimed to just be doing a bit of shopping or something).

 

[winjer]

No. It was that they both knew that they were acting in a way which was defined as an offence; that the police would, sooner or later, be provoked into dealing with that offence; that they would resist any request to desist or go away; that the police would eventually be left with no option but to arrest them and that that is what they were trying to bring about.

Not so, she has applied for permission, the police have acknowledged receipt of the application (around 8 months ago), but have failed to process it, in my view unlawfully. Also, they both potentially count as supporters of/participants in Brian Haw's demonstration.

But Maya Evans, when the arrest came, gave only symbolic resistance (no doubt reasoning that she had no individual grievance with the individual officer who was simply doing their job)

Having been present I can say without doubt that Maya did not give the slightest hint of resistance, and nor has Barbara Tucker any of the other times she has been nicked.

whilst this muppet started a massive fight, leading the them (and possibly the officers) getting injured, and then whinged about getting arrested.

What evidence do you have to say that she started a fight?

 

[The Black Hand]

So, you're still of the opinion that this is a "representative democracy"?

Yes Tax - the vast majority of criminologists outside of the employment by the criminal justice system will agree that there has been an authoritarian drift in Policing since the 1970s. That means the laws, and their enforcement, the training, tactics, technology...

That doesn't mean we're in a fascist state but even Lord Scarman (remember him?) said that there was a fine line between a 'police state and a state where the police were efficient but with a semblance of democratic control'... [that's a precis from memory so please forgive the innaccuracy]. The point is that the right to protest MUST be defended at all times, any attempt to curtail it is a move towards a more authoritarian state where democratic debate and participation is discouraged.

 

[winjer]

she must have known full well that, rightly or wrongly, she had not been granted permission.

No basis in law to not grant permission:

The Commissioner must give authorisation for the demonstration to which the notice relates.

 

[winjer]

I'm not sure that anyone who wasn't there can say that. The evidence will be presented to the Court and they will decide whether the allegation is "laughable" or not.

I've met her, and the officers who arrested her, I've seen her injuries and the photos of her arrest, I've heard her account, the officers' accounts, and several witness accounts, so forgive me for thinking I'm in a better position than you to offer an opinion.

 

[detective-boy]

What evidence do you have to say that she started a fight?

Er .. her own account.

Are you suggesting that the police attacked her without any reason whatsever? In a public place, surrounded by loads of people with cameras, CCTV coverage, etc? Seems extremely unlikely to me - the reading of the situation as force being used to make an arrest and that force being alleged to be excessive sounds far more believable, doesn't it?

 

[detective-boy]

No basis in law to not grant permission:

The Commissioner must give authorisation for the demonstration to which the notice relates.

I know that. That is NOT my point. My point is that she would have known that she had NOT received permission and therefore it would be reasonable to assume that the officers dealing with her did not think she did have permission. By all means challenge the failure to process the application (which is different from refusing it); or if it is refused, challenge that. But resisting arrest by an officer who only knows that the demo is not authorised is not a very sensible way of going about it.

 

[detective-boy]

so forgive me for thinking I'm in a better position than you to offer an opinion.

If you have, you obviously are. But you have said nothing to convince me that her initial decision to demonstrate was ever going to lead to anything but the confrontation she got. If she did not see that coming she is more stupid that it appears.

 

[winjer]

If you have, you obviously are. But you have said nothing to convince me that her initial decision to demonstrate was ever going to lead to anything but the confrontation she got.

de minimis non curat lex?

 

[winjer]

Er .. her own account.

Where? From the OP link, 'rikki' writes:
this didn't impede the officers as they pushed barbara and steve first against the railings, and then dragged them into parliament square where they forced them down onto the ground. barbara's face was covered with mud as she was led off to the police van, and both looked very alarmed and distressed by the police actions. ... both barbara and steve have described how they were approached by police officers while they were standing peacefully holding their protest banners. they informed police who threatened them with arrest that they could only be 'reported' not arrested, for 'unauthorised' protest. the next thing they knew they were surrounded by police who seemed intent to inflict maximum pain in minimum time.

and John McDonnell writes:
a large number of police arrived on foot, pounced upon the demonstrators, and forced them onto the railings and onto the walled section of the square. this caused them considerable distress and physical pain with risk of further injury.

Which part mentions a fight?

Are you suggesting that the police attacked her without any reason whatsever? In a public place, surrounded by loads of people with cameras, CCTV coverage, etc?

Yes. Having seen it happen before, it wouldn't surprise me at all. On the 5th August she was violently arrested for s137 obstruction of Whitehall, despite it being closed at the time.

Seems extremely unlikely to me - the reading of the situation as force being used to make an arrest and that force being alleged to be excessive sounds far more believable, doesn't it?

No. This seems to be your interpretation of every police action, they are always just doing their job, never acting as individuals or like any other 'crowd'.

 

[TopCat]

And, sadly, typical from legally illiterate scum, too. More absolute, hysterical bollocks (e.g reference to "reportable" rather than "arrestable" offences - implying that the former meant no power of arrest. Absolute complete and utter shite .)

Pig cunt.

 

[winjer]

Pig cunt.

However, on this occasion correct pig cunt.

 

[TopCat]

However, on this occasion correct pig cunt.

I disagree, this fucker would have you believe the police spend all their time helping old ladies across the road.

He is an apologgist of their worst behaviour.

Fuck him..

 

[detective-boy]

He is an apologgist of their worst behaviour.

But I'm not though.

That is your perception but it arises, I would suggest, from your own prejudices.