Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Chat about anything not specifically aviation related
Post Reply
User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

Static police line being advanced upon by mob throwing bottles and trying to blind them with lasers. Wouldn’t you fight back?
Edit. I’ll rephrase that. Wouldn’t you defend yourself?
Last edited by iainpeden on Sat 27 Mar 2021, 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

I’m not a police officer, so whatever I say would be not of much value, but no, I wouldn’t. And I was not aware that the role of police officers was to “fight back” protestors.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

Just rephrased my response.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

vandal
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 2:13 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by vandal »

IATthenRIAT wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 9:05 pm

There are quite a few video's on twitter from the event from different photographers Alot of these were attacked for what looks like just being there filming the police, another one shows a group of people just sitting down being attacked from above by the police.
Are the video's shown full length, or edited?

Now - if it was me & I was there filming away peacefully & violence erupted, I'd be off. No photograph or clip of film is worth me ending up in hospital over, whether my job depended on it or not. I would also be off in a heartbeat were I a peaceful protester & violence kicked off. No point in hanging around - you're only going to end up an innocent victim, or maybe worse.

Conversely, those peaceful protesters that were just sitting there, is there the slightest possibility they were cornered troublemakers & sat down to look like innocent victims?

I don't for a minute agree with the Police using force, excessive or otherwise on innocent persons, nor do I agree with the minority who only have the intention of inciting violence.

There are always two sides to a story & we can only judge when we have both accounts.

You've been quite vocal on media reporting on other threads, but quite happy to accept what they are showing here is the truth. It may well be, but without all the facts, we will not know for certain.
Last edited by vandal on Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

The response is to my erudite and French-baiting pal IP (and his famous cap full of pin-badges) - Not you, V:

“Fight back” is not the same as “defend yourself”.

And defending oneself involves only the amount of force necessary to defend oneself and no more. Very basic stuff.

Illegally “blading” protestors on the floor with riot shields isn’t self-defence. Attacking a member of the press (and carelessness is absolutely not a defence the Police can rely on), even after they call out that they’re the press is not self-defence. Arresting women lighing candles and planting flowers at a vigil for a person murdered by a serving police officer isn’t self-defence. Lying to the press about officers suffering injuries isn’t self-defence.

Even if you think that it is self defence (even though it isn’t) how is it that these protests attract a more violent crowd necessitating more extreme “self-defence” than boozed-up football crowds?

I abhor the members of the crowd who did things like set a vehicle alight last weekend. But to suggest that that makes the police action seen very clearly in numerous videos (and plenty more exist out there which cannot be posted due to the language) is in any way acceptable is abhorrent.

I accept, re the footage posted, that more nuance might be present just outside the clip. Absolutely, there could well be. But equally, there could well not be, either. We can’t know one way or the other. So whilst we cannot view these videos with absolute certainty, you can also not discount them on the basis that there *may* be some other context, either. The result is something in between.

And, on the face of it, and unless any other context arises, it appears, that the Police are behaving in a completely unacceptable way.

vandal
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 2:13 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by vandal »

iainpeden wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 9:33 pm
Static police line being advanced upon by mob throwing bottles and trying to blind them with lasers. Wouldn’t you fight back?
Edit. I’ll rephrase that. Wouldn’t you defend yourself?
I thought the intention was not one strictly of defence per say, but rather to prevent the advancing mob from gaining ground - To contain the situation & stop it spilling over into other areas.

I can see where it would be difficult to not adopt a defence strategy though, both for yourself & your colleagues.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

Tommy,Seems you’re condemning a complete public service because of the actions of a few. Personally I wouldn’t condemn all the legal professionals in the country because of the few who are corrupt or twist the law to get the crooks off their just desserts.😇

Sleep well, I am off to bed.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
Ewart
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun 24 Nov 2013, 1:04 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Ewart »

Tommy wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 9:58 pm

“Fight back” is not the same as “defend yourself”.

And defending oneself involves only the amount of force necessary to defend oneself and no more. Very basic stuff.

Illegally “blading” protestors on the floor with riot shields isn’t self-defence. Attacking a member of the press (and carelessness is absolutely not a defence the Police can rely on), even after they call out that they’re the press is not self-defence.

Even if you think that it is self defence (even though it isn’t) how is it that these protests attract a more violent crowd necessitating more extreme “self-defence” than boozed-up football crowds?

And, on the face of it, and unless any other context arises, it appears, that the Police are behaving in a completely unacceptable way.

There are more lawful uses of force as opposed to the common law right to self defence.

S.3 Criminal Law Act allows any person to use force in certain circumstances including to prevent a crime from taking place.

S.117 PACE allows Police Officers to use force whilst executing powers under that act.

And there is a law about not having to weigh to nicesties, s.76 (78?) criminal justice and immigration act. Which can cover otherwise careless use of force.

The above legislation when applied correctly can allow for up to and including leathal force to be used, based on the facts as they were perceived to be at the time.

I'm curious as to how a 'blade' of a shield is illegal per se.

Football fans are fairly easy to deal with, they get pushed toward or away from the stadium and will eventually fade away within a reasonable time of the game finishing. And will be low in number of risk elements, maybe 20-30 main trouble makers

Protesters don't.

Go back to the 2011 riots, a less forceful Police response was criticised as to leading to the terrible scenes seen.

Join the Police, damned if you do, damned if you don't some times.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

Ewart wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:42 pm
Tommy wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 9:58 pm

“Fight back” is not the same as “defend yourself”.

And defending oneself involves only the amount of force necessary to defend oneself and no more. Very basic stuff.

Illegally “blading” protestors on the floor with riot shields isn’t self-defence. Attacking a member of the press (and carelessness is absolutely not a defence the Police can rely on), even after they call out that they’re the press is not self-defence.

Even if you think that it is self defence (even though it isn’t) how is it that these protests attract a more violent crowd necessitating more extreme “self-defence” than boozed-up football crowds?

And, on the face of it, and unless any other context arises, it appears, that the Police are behaving in a completely unacceptable way.

There are more lawful uses of force as opposed to the common law right to self defence.

S.3 Criminal Law Act allows any person to use force in certain circumstances including to prevent a crime from taking place.
I actually don’t think that there are. As far as I recall, all (or most) statutory definitions of “self defence” are predicated on the common law definition of it.

Re s.3, it’s to use such force *”as is reasonable”* - you’re missing vital wording in your referencing. Any force that goes beyond what is reasonable is not covered by s.3.
Ewart wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:42 pm
S.117 PACE allows Police Officers to use force whilst executing powers under that act.
Again, you’re missing absolutely vital wording, the act says (as I recall) “as is reasonable” and I think there’s also a “as is necessary” use there too.

Words like this are very specific mechanisms in law.
Ewart wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:42 pm
And there is a law about not having to weigh to nicesties, s.76 (78?) criminal justice and immigration act. Which can cover otherwise careless use of force.
I’m only speaking from memory, and I’ll stick my hands up if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that this means what you think it means.
Ewart wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:42 pm
The above legislation when applied correctly can allow for up to and including leathal force to be used, based on the facts as they were perceived to be at the time.
I’m not sure that it’s as simple as you make out. It’s late on a Saturday and I’m balls-deep in an excellent wine, so perhaps my memory is a bit fuzzy, but whilst one must take into account circumstances as the person exercising self-defence believed. There is also the question of proportionality. Otherwise we’d have a nonsense law that would allow a police officer to use lethal force for the prevention of every single crime because they “believed” that they were acting in self defence or to stop a crime. As I recall, it’s nothing to do with only what police perceive, simply that what they believed at the time has to be taken into account, which, of course it has to. It’d be illogical not to take someone’s belief into account.
Ewart wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:42 pm
I'm curious as to how a 'blade' of a shield is illegal per se.
It’s the unreasonable use of defensive equipment for the purpose of inflicting disproportionate force and injury upon another. I have neither the time nor inclination to find the case now, but I can recall at least one case from 2015/16 of a Midlands (maybe West Mercia) police force paying a settlement in compensation to someone they’d injured by using their shield as a weapon to cause damage (and cause damage they did, a laceration to the victim’s face, if I recall), rather than to simply defend themselves. It could even have been “blading”, but I’d have to double-check.
Ewart wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:42 pm
Football fans are fairly easy to deal with, they get pushed toward or away from the stadium and will eventually fade away within a reasonable time of the game finishing. And will be low in number of risk elements, maybe 20-30 main trouble makers

Protesters don't.
Do they not? The fact that protests end surely means that they are precisely similar? They must dissipate at some point, or last week’s protest would never have stopped. Nor would any protest, for that matter.
Ewart wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:42 pm
Go back to the 2011 riots, a less forceful Police response was criticised as to leading to the terrible scenes seen.
Thugs and bellends from that time, I agree, though they never really caused any long lasting damage, but the central point is that protestors are not rioters. There is a difference between the two.
Ewart wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:42 pm
Join the Police, damned if you do, damned if you don't some times.
I have a lot of respect for most police, my brother’s a copper. But they really are just joe public in uniform. They’re there *for* us. And we should call things out when they get it wrong, as I believe the police in Bristol, and the Met before that have done recently.

I’ve passed no comment on the thousands of other officers up and down the country who have not done wrong - indeed I think I earlier in this thread a few weeks ago I made effort to note and praise Nottingham’s Police for their well-handled behaviour at a vigil whilst the Met were being idiots.

And, just to reiterate, things like burning the police vehicle and letting off fireworks are absolutely abhorrent. I obviously hope that those individuals are caught and punished appropriately. But that does not give the green light for officers to use disproportionate force on protestors, either.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

iainpeden wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:14 pm
Tommy,Seems you’re condemning a complete public service because of the actions of a few. Personally I wouldn’t condemn all the legal professionals in the country because of the few who are corrupt or twist the law to get the crooks off their just desserts.
Bit of fishing there, eh, pal? Perhaps if these scoundrels were better-taught in schools to be upstanding members of our society, the relevant sectors of my profession wouldn’t have as much work! 😘

(Presume you’re being facetious, obviously, because otherwise that’s quite a disappointingly illogical (and low) blow from you, my friend.)

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

Final point before I knock it on the head;

I don’t think that the forces are some undying evil that’s hell bent on battering innocent people who want their voices heard.

But they appear to be getting things wrong. I suspect that’s because there has not been enough time to strategise these things. My sporting analogy was deliberate. Football games are time-honoured and well-planned. Local police know the games where fans clash, and know the more friendly rivalries. They know the regular haunts, and the trouble-makers, and can plan accordingly. Which is why there’s always very little footage of them battering ostensibly drunk yobbos making a noise on a Saturday afternoon.

But that’s still no excuse. These police officers know that they also can contribute to the pressure-cooker by escalation. The more heavy-handed the y are, the more they’re like to cause the other side to get more emotive and kick off.

Much like the Everard vigil a few weeks ago. That was peaceful until it escalated. By which side doesn’t matter, it took two to tango. If the police had had a more light-touch approach, I believe that the vigil would have dissipated itself. Or at the very least, the handful (at most) of loud people with megaphones would have remained just that.

Competent policing and tactics know this. And they’ve learned this the hard way. Which is why re sporting events, rather than escalating matters, they facilitate matters. They get fans to and from stadiums and too and from public transport easy peasy.

You take the Everard vigil again, those organisers tried to work with the police in advance (and even sought and obtained that court judgment that said protests aren’t immediately illegal under Covid rules). As far as both the vigil-organisers and the Met have said, the Met refused to work with those organisers because they thought it was a breach of Covid regulations. And they paid the price for it.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

Tommy wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 11:44 pm
iainpeden wrote:
Sat 27 Mar 2021, 10:14 pm
Tommy,Seems you’re condemning a complete public service because of the actions of a few. Personally I wouldn’t condemn all the legal professionals in the country because of the few who are corrupt or twist the law to get the crooks off their just desserts.
Bit of fishing there, eh, pal? Perhaps if these scoundrels were better-taught in schools to be upstanding members of our society, the relevant sectors of my profession wouldn’t have as much work! 😘

(Presume you’re being facetious, obviously, because otherwise that’s quite a disappointingly illogical (and low) blow from you, my friend.)
Somewhat - and fuelled by a very pleasant bottle of South African red (never French!).

I'd suggest everybody takes the time to listen to the interview on Radio 5 this morning (around 8.50) with a Chief Super from the Bristol force. It was a calm and probing discussion which drew out calm and rational answers to what happened from the police point of view.

I do think it's telling that of the other protests being reported this morning, a group of 13 have been arrested in Manchester for blocking tram lines, there are reports from a number of places around the UK but nothing, that I have heard at least, about more violence.

That says more and more to me that the Bristol agitators were essentially going for "round 2" of a ruck with the police - and got one.
As to the journalists being there - or rather being in the front line. The Chief Super's made the point that it's now hard to identify bona fide reporters (interviewer used the phrase "citizen reporters") especially in a heated environment. However, it's one thing reporting well and another being at the forefront of a violent event; if you look at the video on that tweet there are a number of cameras being held high and essentially machine gunning flash into the eyes of the police. I'm guessing that those are reporters because others would just have the phones out and their actions were exacerbating the confrontation.

Anyway, I'm now off to polish my cap badges so that Tommy can look down on me from the top row of the RIAT stand in '22 then it's restaining the garage door I have been sanding down over the last few days. As it's an aviation forum (apparently) I'll share the fact that I'm using Sikkens stain , the firm also made the paint used on the Vulcan at Duxford. (manufacturer and paint number happens to be stencilled on the starboard main u/c door)
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

Tomahawk
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 11:14 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tomahawk »

Interesting, I see further debate on these pages....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56574557

disgruntled
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed 11 Dec 2013, 12:16 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by disgruntled »

Tomahawk wrote:
Tue 30 Mar 2021, 12:15 pm
Interesting, I see further debate on these pages....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56574557
Doubt it. It doesn’t fit the narrative of the thread very well, but thank you for highlighting it as it fits what the silent majority generally felt about the situation.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

My only thought at lunchtime on the Beeb was "Why use the word women in the reporting of arrests when people would have been as accurate?" Thought the fairer sex was meant to be equal now but we all know the female is deadlier that the male.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3944
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Spiny Norman »

One person's appropriateness is another's inappropriateness.

If anyone thinks arresting women after a vigil in memory of a woman murdered going about her business is appropriate then that's up to them.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by iainpeden »

Not the point I was trying to make. For example:
If an accountant steals a million pounds then it’s relevant to say in the news report he is an accountant. If an accountant gets caught dealing drugs his profession is irrelevant.
The police watchdog’s report into how the police dealt with that gathering should not have been biased one way or the other depending upon it being a gathering of males or females. The BBC report emphasising that is was women put a spin on it.
Had the same gathering taken place with men performing in exactly the same way would it have made so much news?
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

vandal
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 2:13 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by vandal »

I thought it was a predominantly Female protest / vigil to begin with?

IATthenRIAT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat 23 Jun 2018, 3:05 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by IATthenRIAT »

Thing is though - If it was at a soccer match and a female police officer was pulled or pushed over by Two drunken men - it would be reported like that, not that an officer was pushed/pulled.

disgruntled
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed 11 Dec 2013, 12:16 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by disgruntled »

Spiny Norman wrote:
Tue 30 Mar 2021, 9:24 pm
One person's appropriateness is another's inappropriateness.

If anyone thinks arresting women after a vigil in memory of a woman murdered going about her business is appropriate then that's up to them.
What about if the people there had identified as men, would that be acceptable?

Sorry that was facetious however...

They were not arrested for attending the vigil. Hundreds (thousands?) of people attended peacefully, paid their respects, raised awareness of the situation and then left peacefully. These people were not arrested.

The people arrested were not attending peacefully and had been asked to move on once the main body of people had already dispersed. They were only arrested after they became violent and refused to disperse.

As it is wrong to say that every person there was violent and disobedient so it is also wrong to say that those arrested were just going about their civil rights to campaign peacefully.
It also goes without saying that whatever gender they identify as has absolutely zero bearing on whether they should be arrested.

IATthenRIAT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat 23 Jun 2018, 3:05 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by IATthenRIAT »

Good to see all the protests today all over the country.

User avatar
Pen Pusher
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:34 pm
Location: St Ives, Cambs
Contact:

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Pen Pusher »

IATthenRIAT wrote:
Sat 03 Apr 2021, 9:36 pm
Good to see all the protests today all over the country.
So you are now condoning civil disobedience. How many police officers were carrying pointed sticks or even knives as one woman was arrested for?.

Image
The Future Of Photography Is Mirrorless

DUXFORDfotoGALLERY on Facebook
DUXFORDfotoGALLERY on Instagram

User avatar
Mooshie1956
Posts: 1605
Joined: Wed 01 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Mooshie1956 »

Pen Pusher wrote:
Sun 04 Apr 2021, 7:05 am
IATthenRIAT wrote:
Sat 03 Apr 2021, 9:36 pm
Good to see all the protests today all over the country.
So you are now condoning civil disobedience. How many police officers were carrying pointed sticks or even knives as one woman was arrested for?.

Image
Is it just me or does that woman look pregnant as well. If so what a complete tool she is.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mooshie1956/
Panny G80 12-60 Lens
Panny 100-400 Lens
Olympus 60 Macro Lens

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 7273
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by Tommy »

Pen Pusher wrote:
Sun 04 Apr 2021, 7:05 am
IATthenRIAT wrote:
Sat 03 Apr 2021, 9:36 pm
Good to see all the protests today all over the country.
So you are now condoning civil disobedience.
Protests do not equal civil disobedience, and so no, ItR isn’t. You’re better than that.

IATthenRIAT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat 23 Jun 2018, 3:05 am

Re: Heavy Handed Police (Again)

Post by IATthenRIAT »

Tommy wrote:
Sun 04 Apr 2021, 8:50 am
Pen Pusher wrote:
Sun 04 Apr 2021, 7:05 am
IATthenRIAT wrote:
Sat 03 Apr 2021, 9:36 pm
Good to see all the protests today all over the country.
So you are now condoning civil disobedience.
Protests do not equal civil disobedience, and so no, ItR isn’t. You’re better than that.
I meant the peaceful protests with talkers - not anyone at these events hell bent on causing trouble - you are always going to get intentional trouble makers there for no other reason than to give the even a bad name.

Post Reply