Yet more police brutality

[detective-boy]

de minimis non curat lex?

Assuming that this is the full Latin for the "de minimis" principle that the law doesn't concern itself with trifles (unless they are thrown at judges, in my experience), I would agree. The police could have dealt with the matter in other ways than arrest. I have posted before of the Metropolutan Police's default approach of arrest if a power exists where lots of county forces use summons instead. I have also commented that the revised powers of arrest (s.24 and 24A of PACE, as amended by the SOCPA) will probably cause this to be reviewed as cases start to be tried on the point.

Although I would quite possibly have either ignored her, or tried to bore her into submission, that is a matter of discretion and I think a lawful power of arrest existed and that it was certainly not entirely outside the bounds of possible approaches for it to be exercised.

 

[detective-boy]

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?

I was using "fight" as a generic expression to include the offering of force to resist some other action (in this case arrest). The quote above includes the line:

"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."

That sounds to me like an arrest followed by the use of force which is considered excessive, as opposed to a random attack.

John McDonnell's use of "pounced upon" could also be expected to refer to an approach and an attempt to stop / prevent the demonstration, though his use of emotive, as opposed to precise, language is unfortunate.

 

[TAE]

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

Indeed, you would - like I said.

Which makes your following attack complete non-sense:

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.

Let it all out, no matter how little sense it makes, vent your anger.


But don't expect me to take you seriously anymore.

 

[detective-boy]

Which makes your following attack complete non-sense:

Why? They are completely unrelated issues.

...But don't expect me to take you seriously anymore

I gave up taking you seriously ages ago.

 

[TAE]

Why? They are completely unrelated issues.

Your insult against me is unrelated to what I posted?

I gave up taking you seriously ages ago.

That's a shame because I've always tried to argue on the facts.

I did take you serious in the past - but your stream of random abuse against people is just lame.

Not to mention that you do seem to change/contradict what you are saying.

 

[TopCat]

But I'm not though.

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

It comes from reading your posts for years.

 

[detective-boy]

It comes from reading your posts for years.

No. It comes from misreading or selectively reading my posts for years.

There are probably fifteen threads where I have recommended that people complain / sue whatever. Even to the point of getting the fucking arse when they can't be bothered.

 

[The Black Hand]

It comes from reading your posts for years.

I agree Top Cat - he is an apologist. Putting the best possible interpretation of their behaviour within and outside of the law... But then that's what all cops do... You are not impartial DiBble, regardless of how you want to appear and how you want to be...

 

[detective-boy]

I agree Top Cat - he is an apologist.

I have an opinion as to what you are. But I am willing to engage on different topics without carrying forward any preconceived opinions. If you can't do that (and you clearly can't) then you will go through life surrounded by those just like you ... and you will be the poorer for it.

 

[The Black Hand]

I have an opinion as to what you are. But I am willing to engage on different topics without carrying forward any preconceived opinions. If you can't do that (and you clearly can't) then you will go through life surrounded by those just like you ... and you will be the poorer for it.

I have an open mind and I do understand politics. You are defending the status quo so it is not a 'wild stab in the dark' to call you an apologist for it.
It all depends ultimately upon what are the core values that support what you see, whose truth do you value above others, and this informs the perspective that you promote which is based on the cultural background you feel comfortable with, live in and come to believe in. YOU are not independent nor impartial despite what you may believe, and it is obvious to the rest of us.

 

[detective-boy]

I have an open mind and I do understand politics. You are defending the status quo so it is not a 'wild stab in the dark' to call you an apologist for it.

If you are talking about police brutality (as the title of this thread, chosen by you, would suggest) and you mean the status quo is unlawful and excessive use of force by police officers carrying out their duties where exactly have I ever defended the status quo? I have explained that sometimes what people think is unlwful is, in fact, not (or, more usually, may not be). But I have NEVER suggested that unlawful or excessive force should be allowed to go unchallenged.

YOU are not independent nor impartial despite what you may believe, and it is obvious to the rest of us.

You've had a poll done then have you, seeing as you claim to speak for "the rest of us"? If so, I suggest you ask for your money back. Because I consistently recive PMs from people commenting on how I DO manage to maintain an objective stance.

 

[The Black Hand]

If you are talking about police brutality (as the title of this thread, chosen by you, would suggest) and you mean the status quo is unlawful and excessive use of force by police officers carrying out their duties where exactly have I ever defended the status quo? I have explained that sometimes what people think is unlwful is, in fact, not (or, more usually, may not be). But I have NEVER suggested that unlawful or excessive force should be allowed to go unchallenged.


You've had a poll done then have you, seeing as you claim to speak for "the rest of us"? If so, I suggest you ask for your money back. Because I consistently recive PMs from people commenting on how I DO manage to maintain an objective stance.

That's what I said - you are defending the status quo. You are not objective either, even if the appearance of liberalism is impartial it is NOT in essence, and this is where I and liberals like you, and who may or may not congratulate you, part company.

I and others certainly would not come to you for advice if beasted by the bill...

 

[detective-boy]

I and others certainly would not come to you for advice if beasted by the bill...

Through your prejudice and closed minds you would miss an opportunity to obtain a far better outcome than you may otherwise then.

Didn't someone once say the key to success is the ability to "understand your enemy"?

 

[The Black Hand]

Through your prejudice and closed minds you would miss an opportunity to obtain a far better outcome than you may otherwise then.

Didn't someone once say the key to success is the ability to "understand your enemy"?

I don't think you are absolutely on t'owd bills side btw, I was just saying that everybody is biased to one degree or another.

I agree totally, I have said for a long long time people should be reading more reactionary publications in order to subvert/divide/or use the information to our advantage.

I have already won ££££ off t'owd bill so I think my approach is OK thanks very much. Though if I have a question I will share it with you...

 

[detective-boy]

I have already won ££££ off t'owd bill so I think my approach is OK thanks very much. Though if I have a question I will share it with you...

Sadly it is not difficult for anyone who has the faintest idea about what they are doing to do precisely that! Despite the constant posts about how clinically efficient, ruthless, etc. the UK police are ... the truth is they are anything but! And when they are challenged they frequently find that through their own (individual and corporate) incompetence they are unable to defend even what should be entirely defendable positions, let alone indefensible ones where they have clearly been wrong!

As I have posted previously, I very strongly believe that the best control on the police is the public - know what they should (and can) do; know what the service levels they have promised are ... and when they breach the rules, or the promises they have made, hold them to account. (But be ready to find that they have not, actually broken any rules or breached any promises, even if you thought they had to start with - frequently on these threads people complain of things which are simply not wrong or illegal (e.g. "I got nicked and hadn't done anything" doesn't necessarily mean anything unlawful in itself - there are quite powers to arrest on suspicion which often people do not know about or consider - and that is often what I am trying to explain which people see as being an "apologist")).

ONLY the people can know everything that the police are doing - no oversight arrangements can ever do more than scratch the surface. ONLY the people can supervise every officer, every minute of every day - not even the best suprevising officer can do more than scratch the surface.

There are problems with the complaints system (not least, somewhat perversely, in it's insistence on dealing with every complaint as if it is the worst crime ever committed - get beaten half to death and you'll be lucky if you get a detective sergeant assigned to the case and they may or may not get round to taking formal statements; get a copper be a bit rude to you and you'll find a Chief Inspector assigned to the investigation and there'll be pages and pages of stuff put together). But the worst problem is that we do not pursue complaints until they are completed. I think this is a bit of a "British problem" - we moan about stuff but we don't get involved with doing our bit to make it better.

 

[The Black Hand]

Fuk the police

 

[mk12]

fuk da police man!

 

[The Black Hand]

fuk da police man!

Right on Bruvver

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Oh stop it.