I predict more riots

Initialised

The police have been given the go ahead for water canon next time, cue protesters with fireworks and molotovs

Greg T

PresumingEd wrote:

[Kettling causes peaceful protesters to become justifiably angry, which virtually guarantees some sort of violence kicking off. Therefore my point about causation is entirely valid. Just because some non-kettled protests also turn violent does not disprove my theory.

Yes it does.

If protests would not turn violent without kettling and then your theory works.

However...

some non-kettled protests also turn violent

Means that it's not kettling that causes violence it's the protestors.

Of course it's more nuanced than this, however your statement that kettling causes placid marchers to turn violent isn't supported by your own "facts"

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

Of course it's more nuanced than this, however your statement that kettling causes placid marchers to turn violent isn't supported by your own "facts"

I'm inclined to agree with Presuming. I'd guess that Kettling provokes anger in people who probably would have stayed reasonably calm otherwise. Some people think this provocation is intentional. I'm not convinced it is, its just blunt crowd control. Police seem to have a choice of giving the protest more freedom and giving the rioting minority more opportunity to cause problems, or to lock down whole pockets of protestors to contain potential rioters. The latter may end up with more people being pissed off, but at least they're contained.

Greg, you seem to not be making a distinction between law abiding protesters and rioters?

asquithea

Surely both can be true?

e.g. Cigarettes cause cancer

d87heaven

What about 'peaceful protests' where they have a sit in and the police forcibley remove people, dragging them face down across the pavement etc? Protesters peaceful - police start to manhandle - crowd turns angry.

At least they dont' discriminate, seems everyone is game. Bit of a dark video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQV9P61FUwg

To be fair though if you are in wheelchair and won't move what can they do? Damned if they do and damned if they don't .

After watching the series 'Coppers' Im convinced the riot squad has a large proportion of blokes that just like to get in a ruck and have a bit of power. And that was just the stuff that was allowed to be shown. I am betting lots more stuff goes on that you won't ever see unless you enter thier world.

W1

d87heaven wrote:

After watching the series 'Coppers' Im convinced the riot squad has a large proportion of blokes that just like to get in a ruck and have a bit of power. And that was just the stuff that was allowed to be shown. I am betting lots more stuff goes on that you won't ever see unless you enter thier world.

With the prevalence of mobile phone cameras I doubt there's much going on that isn't being filmed and wouldn't hesitate to be put on you-tube if the protestors thought it might do the police some damage.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with Presuming. I'd guess that Kettling provokes anger in people who probably would have stayed reasonably calm otherwise. Some people think this provocation is intentional. I'm not convinced it is, its just blunt crowd control. Police seem to have a choice of giving the protest more freedom and giving the rioting minority more opportunity to cause problems, or to lock down whole pockets of protestors to contain potential rioters. The latter may end up with more people being pissed off, but at least they're contained.

I agree with Greg. The first protest wasn't kettled, bit it kicked off. The police would be moronic not to engage in more defensive procedures at the second protest, especially as videos on the news of people kicking windows in encourages the scum to turn up next time. So by the time of the second protest the protesters' ranks were swelled by those who just wanted to cause some trouble, and the police took the (correct) defensive strategy. But without the trouble at the first protest there would have been no need to quickly kettle the second. In other words they don't kettle peaceful protests.

rhext

I think the thing I'll always remember about these particular protests was the expression of hurt outrage in the voice of one student being interviewed about how he got on.

He'd been struggling to find the protest, and had asked a policemen, who had promptly directed him the wrong way. Am not sure which I find more surreal: the fact that he asked a policeman in the first place; the fact that he believed the answer; or the fact that he was clearly most upset at the lack of fair play involved in sending him the wrong way!

rick_chasey

Surely the police know the kellting will cause hassle.

It's in the name of it!

Shove them all into a confined area - let them boil over - get agressive etc within said space - and then they eventually cool down.

Surely the police can do it in another way that wouldn't cause the boil over bit - and just handle those who set out to kick off, rather than get into the mob mentality of it all?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with Presuming. I'd guess that Kettling provokes anger in people who probably would have stayed reasonably calm otherwise. Some people think this provocation is intentional. I'm not convinced it is, its just blunt crowd control. Police seem to have a choice of giving the protest more freedom and giving the rioting minority more opportunity to cause problems, or to lock down whole pockets of protestors to contain potential rioters. The latter may end up with more people being pissed off, but at least they're contained.

I agree with Greg. The first protest wasn't kettled, bit it kicked off. The police would be moronic not to engage in more defensive procedures at the second protest, especially as videos on the news of people kicking windows in encourages the scum to turn up next time. So by the time of the second protest the protesters' ranks were swelled by those who just wanted to cause some trouble, and the police took the (correct) defensive strategy. But without the trouble at the first protest there would have been no need to quickly kettle the second. In other words they don't kettle peaceful protests.

You just won't entertain the idea that it was a small minority that caused the damage, will you?

Just because there was no kettling in the first protest doesn't mean that kettling doesn't cause more people to riot...

rhext

Presumably the police use kettling if they have reasonable grounds to believe a protest might get violent. They use kettling because it's a proven way of containing violence and stopping it from spreading and escalating out of control: not necessarily preventing it in the first place. It's quite possible that the act of kettling a group of people might inflame a few of them to the point of violence: I suspect the police don't care too much about that as long as any violence which does kick off can't spread.

notsoblue

rhext wrote:

Presumably the police use kettling if they have reasonable grounds to believe a protest might get violent. They use kettling because it's a proven way of containing violence and stopping it from spreading and escalating out of control: not necessarily preventing it in the first place. It's quite possible that the act of kettling a group of people might inflame a few of them to the point of violence: I suspect the police don't care too much about that as long as any violence which does kick off can't spread.

Agree

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with Presuming. I'd guess that Kettling provokes anger in people who probably would have stayed reasonably calm otherwise. Some people think this provocation is intentional. I'm not convinced it is, its just blunt crowd control. Police seem to have a choice of giving the protest more freedom and giving the rioting minority more opportunity to cause problems, or to lock down whole pockets of protestors to contain potential rioters. The latter may end up with more people being pissed off, but at least they're contained.

I agree with Greg. The first protest wasn't kettled, bit it kicked off. The police would be moronic not to engage in more defensive procedures at the second protest, especially as videos on the news of people kicking windows in encourages the scum to turn up next time. So by the time of the second protest the protesters' ranks were swelled by those who just wanted to cause some trouble, and the police took the (correct) defensive strategy. But without the trouble at the first protest there would have been no need to quickly kettle the second. In other words they don't kettle peaceful protests.

You just won't entertain the idea that it was a small minority that caused the damage, will you?

Just because there was no kettling in the first protest doesn't mean that kettling doesn't cause more people to riot...

But did the absense of kettling in the first protest allow the riot to occur? It's quite correct for the police to give ostensibly peaceful protests the ability to move around freely. Once that flexibility has been abused (even by a small minority) the police are obliged to be more defensive.

Kettling isn't about identifying the trouble makers (which is impossible to do when faced with 20,000 people). It's to contain any violence or damage that is likely to occur, and stops it spreading until the crowd can be dispersed in a controlled way. That's only required if the protest does/is likely to kick off, evidently.

davmaggs

rhext wrote:

Presumably the police use kettling if they have reasonable grounds to believe a protest might get violent. They use kettling because it's a proven way of containing violence and stopping it from spreading and escalating out of control: not necessarily preventing it in the first place. It's quite possible that the act of kettling a group of people might inflame a few of them to the point of violence: I suspect the police don't care too much about that as long as any violence which does kick off can't spread.

It can also be used to deliberately make sure that people are made to suffer and become so miserable that they are put off exercising their democratic rights again.

Hence the enquiry into it's use in previous years when its security value has been questioned.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

But did the absense of kettling in the first protest allow the riot to occur?

Well thats a bit of a loaded question. Sure, if the first protest had been kettled, then the vandals wouldn't have been able to do the damage they did. But it would have also been more dangerous for the law abiding protesters who probably would have no doubt gotten caught up in the kettling.

I wonder, was the first protest able to get so out of hand because it wasn't expected to be that big? I understand that most of it was organised in a fairly organic way on various social networks, and there was no clear lead. Given that it developed like this, perhaps theres nothing the police could have done better beyond automatically cracking down on *any* protest?

W1 wrote:

It's quite correct for the police to give ostensibly peaceful protests the ability to move around freely. Once that flexibility has been abused (even by a small minority) the police are obliged to be more defensive.

Yep, they'd be neglecting their duties if they didn't. Its very unfortunate.

W1 wrote:

Kettling isn't about identifying the trouble makers (which is impossible to do when faced with 20,000 people). It's to contain any violence or damage that is likely to occur, and stops it spreading until the crowd can be dispersed in a controlled way. That's only required if the protest does/is likely to kick off, evidently.

Yep. Though if any violence does occur, its likely to be worse if theres kettling. But I suppose it will be contained between the anarchists and the police rather than spilling over and resulting in burnt out cars and smashed windows....

The protesters need to be organised and liaise with the police better to avoid violence. Unlikely to happen though?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

sutff[ /quote]

Agree with all of that.

rick_chasey

Footage of the police manhandling a guy out of his wheelchair and carrying/dragging him across the floor and the protest.

Seems an unlikely candidate to be causing much violence in my book.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Footage of the police manhandling a guy out of his wheelchair at carrying/dragging him across the floor and the protest.

Seems an unlikely candidate to be causing much violence in my book.

Were two police officers being dragged away by another near the end there??

rhext

davmaggs wrote:

rhext wrote:

Presumably the police use kettling if they have reasonable grounds to believe a protest might get violent. They use kettling because it's a proven way of containing violence and stopping it from spreading and escalating out of control: not necessarily preventing it in the first place. It's quite possible that the act of kettling a group of people might inflame a few of them to the point of violence: I suspect the police don't care too much about that as long as any violence which does kick off can't spread.

It can also be used to deliberately make sure that people are made to suffer and become so miserable that they are put off exercising their democratic rights again.

Hence the enquiry into it's use in previous years when its security value has been questioned.

I'm sure that's also true. My own view, however, is that the police are probably not using it for this motive, based on the fact that they didn't use it on the first protest. Unfortunately, the first protest descended into violence, so it seems to me that the police have little choice but to assume subsequent protests will go a similar way and act accordingly.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Footage of the police manhandling a guy out of his wheelchair and carrying/dragging him across the floor and the protest.

Seems an unlikely candidate to be causing much violence in my book.

After hearing the "victim" being interviewed on TV this morning, I'm surprised the police never gave him a few more whacks with the batton

He comes over as amongst other things, a serial protestor- typical rent a mob protestor. He did himself no favours at all with that interview

rjsterry

He does come across as a bit self-righteous, but not sure that's a good reason for him to get knocked about, particularly by the police.

davmaggs

spen666 wrote:

After hearing the "victim" being interviewed on TV this morning, I'm surprised the police never gave him a few more whacks with the batton

He comes over as amongst other things, a serial protestor- typical rent a mob protestor. He did himself no favours at all with that interview

I'm all for winding up the outraged with some mild trolling, but I think that you might be going a bit far with this one.

There is comedy in the Police (at previous demos) demanding that parapelgics who've thrown themselves in front of buses move on or be arrested for obstruction, whilst stratching their heads as they work out the feasbility of their own rhetoric demand, but this interviewee can't even operate his own wheelchair and was being hounded by a journo live on air to confess to attacking the Police.

rick_chasey

The point is that, given the police are allowed to do things the rest of us can't in certain situations, like smashing someone over the head with a truncheon during civil unrest, you must make sure that they use that force with the upmost care. They have a monopoly of power in these situations, which can be used to harm a lot of people.

I'm normally quite supportive of police given that my own experience with them has been excellent, but I imagine that is because I have only come into contact with them as the status of a victim of crime.

Stuff like this does make you worry what happens if, for whatever reason, you appear to be on the wrong side. Kafka-esq scenarios are frightening.

It's their job ultimately to protect everyone from crime and harm, whether they are criminals or not. That's why you see UK police restraining people fairly, rather than the US style where, on TV camera, I've seen US police punch people repeatedly untill they 'submitted'.

They've clearly left this mandate by the wayside in this specific instance.

spen666

davmaggs wrote:

spen666 wrote:

After hearing the "victim" being interviewed on TV this morning, I'm surprised the police never gave him a few more whacks with the batton

He comes over as amongst other things, a serial protestor- typical rent a mob protestor. He did himself no favours at all with that interview

I'm all for winding up the outraged with some mild trolling, but I think that you might be going a bit far with this one.

There is comedy in the Police (at previous demos) demanding that parapelgics who've thrown themselves in front of buses move on or be arrested for obstruction, whilst stratching their heads as they work out the feasbility of their own rhetoric demand, but this interviewee can't even operate his own wheelchair and was being hounded by a journo live on air to confess to attacking the Police.

You've seen a different interview to the one I saw.

The one I saw involved the person in question trying to link this protest to government actions in Afghanistan and trying to make political speeches when asked a question, such as had you been told to move on by police....que answer about government policies and avoiding the issue.


To be honest- the police arresting a paraplegic for throweing themselves out of wheelchair and causing an obstruction is fine by me. They have obstructed the highway by their own deliberate action. If it was the case that someone had tipped the paraplegic out of wheelchair (eg police officer, friend, other person) then you may have a point.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

.....

It's their job ultimately to protect everyone from crime and harm, whether they are criminals or not. That's why you see UK police restraining people fairly, rather than the US style where, on TV camera, I've seen US police punch people repeatedly untill they 'submitted'.

.....

Rick,

I'm a little unclear what you mean here. Why do you think the police in UK act differently to in the USA? (I'm not disagreeing that they do)

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

.....

It's their job ultimately to protect everyone from crime and harm, whether they are criminals or not. That's why you see UK police restraining people fairly, rather than the US style where, on TV camera, I've seen US police punch people repeatedly untill they 'submitted'.

.....

Rick,

I'm a little unclear what you mean here. Why do you think the police in UK act differently to in the USA? (I'm not disagreeing that they do)

I think in the UK the notion that they protect everyone, even the people they arrest, even if its from themselves, is more keenly felt than in the US.

That may of course be BS.

I know that a policeman in a normal arrest, even if they're resisting, can't punch them.

davmaggs

spen666 wrote:

You've seen a different interview to the one I saw.

The one I saw involved the person in question trying to link this protest to government actions in Afghanistan and trying to make political speeches when asked a question, such as had you been told to move on by police....que answer about government policies and avoiding the issue.

I think we must have watched two different News 24 reports.

The issue isn't whether he attends other events or whether he was a loud mouth on the day or whether we even like him as a person, but whether two policeman dragged him down the tarmac. There is video footage to show that they did.

The usual defence that he was throwing things can't apply, nor can it be claimed that any fear or distress can be caused by his physical behaviour as he can't do anything. It is laugable to suggest that someone with CP could intimitade riot trained officers.

You may not like the guy or his cause, but be rational. Once disabled people start getting a shoeing then it doesn't look good for the Met.

rjsterry

davmaggs wrote:

spen666 wrote:

You've seen a different interview to the one I saw.

The one I saw involved the person in question trying to link this protest to government actions in Afghanistan and trying to make political speeches when asked a question, such as had you been told to move on by police....que answer about government policies and avoiding the issue.

I think we must have watched two different News 24 reports.

The issue isn't whether he attends other events or whether he was a loud mouth on the day or whether we even like him as a person, but whether two policeman dragged him down the tarmac. There is video footage to show that they did.

The usual defence that he was throwing things can't apply, nor can it be claimed that any fear or distress can be caused by his physical behaviour as he can't do anything. It is laugable to suggest that someone with CP could intimitade riot trained officers.

You may not like the guy or his cause, but be rational. Once disabled people start getting a shoeing then it doesn't look good for the Met.

Quite. If he has CP, he's unlikely to be 'throwing himself out of his chair'.

spen666

davmaggs wrote:

spen666 wrote:

You've seen a different interview to the one I saw.

The one I saw involved the person in question trying to link this protest to government actions in Afghanistan and trying to make political speeches when asked a question, such as had you been told to move on by police....que answer about government policies and avoiding the issue.

I think we must have watched two different News 24 reports.

The issue isn't whether he attends other events or whether he was a loud mouth on the day or whether we even like him as a person, but whether two policeman dragged him down the tarmac. There is video footage to show that they did.

The usual defence that he was throwing things can't apply, nor can it be claimed that any fear or distress can be caused by his physical behaviour as he can't do anything. It is laugable to suggest that someone with CP could intimitade riot trained officers.

You may not like the guy or his cause, but be rational. Once disabled people start getting a shoeing then it doesn't look good for the Met.

This thread is getting confusing- it seems you are answering different points to the ones I am making and vice versa - re paraplegics.

I did not watch a News 24 interview- think there was one filmed last night.

I saw a live interview this morning

W1

davmaggs wrote:

I think we must have watched two different News 24 reports.

The issue isn't whether he attends other events or whether he was a loud mouth on the day or whether we even like him as a person, but whether two policeman dragged him down the tarmac. There is video footage to show that they did.

The usual defence that he was throwing things can't apply, nor can it be claimed that any fear or distress can be caused by his physical behaviour as he can't do anything. It is laugable to suggest that someone with CP could intimitade riot trained officers.

You may not like the guy or his cause, but be rational. Once disabled people start getting a shoeing then it doesn't look good for the Met.

It looked to me like he was being removed (somewhat quickly) for his own safety. I would have thought that anyone in a wheelchair would be particularly vulnerable from being crushed or toppled by the crowd, or caught up in any charge undertaken by the police. Now, would I be cynical to suggest that he placed himself in that sort of danger in order to get some footage of someone in a wheelchair being "attacked" by the police and to use it so he could get some prime time TV interviews?