I predict more riots
Comments
-
Here is the link to News 24. The journo seems obessed with trying to get him to confess to throwing things despite it being established off the bat that he can't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo
Sorry W1, I'm now sure how being wrestled out of a chair onto the tarmac and then dragged along helps with safety.0 -
-
From his own blogomehow, me and Finlay managed to weave our way through the police line. We found ourselves in a large no-mans-land, in between the riot police trying to stop the crowd, and the police horses getting ready to charge. I turned in my wheelchair to face the police. “Move out of the way!” one of the mounted police shouted at me. I shook my head.
From the corner of my eye, I spotted one of the policemen from the earlier incident. He recognised me immediately. Officer KF936 came charging towards me. Tipping the wheelchair to the side, he pushed me onto the concrete, before grabbing my arms and dragging me across the road. The crowd of 200 ran and surrounded him. I got back up and stood in front of the horses.
Emphasis above is my own but Jody M's description of what occurred. It looks as though W1 is correct in that they wanted him out of the way. It looks as if it was for his own protection but the implementation of it was done badly. Probably the reason the policeman is being dragged away is because 200 unhappy people were about to surround them.
As an aside I find it very hard to make anything out from the video. It's all dark with lots of panning around and some sort of tussle going on near the floor. I certainly couldn't make any positive id from it of those involved.0 -
davmaggs wrote:Sorry W1, I'm now sure how being wrestled out of a chair onto the tarmac and then dragged along helps with safety.
Because it gets him out of the way quickly? Because that also limits the chance of the police being attacked by his yobbish mates?
I think you're taking a lot from that video that isn't really there. I stand by my analysis - anyone in his particular condition wouldn't be so stupid as to put themselves between a mob and riot police on horseback unless they wanted the subsequent attention, so that he can vent his lefty political ball-cocks.
Next time perhaps the police should just leave him there to face the consequences of his own stupidity/self publicity? It might backfire a bit if he gets crushed to death by the mob I suppose.0 -
Err, would wheeling him out of the way not be as effective? If he weighs at least 70kg + chair, then wheeling him would be a darn sight easier.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Err, would wheeling him out of the way not be as effective? If he weighs at least 70kg + chair, then wheeling him would be a darn sight easier.
Bearing in mind he said he "stood in front of the horses", maybe he could have moved himself? Except that wouldn't have got him on the BBC or Sky, I suppose!
So to answer my own question, yes I am that cynical.
I've not faced a mob intent on causing me as much physical harm as possible whilst hurling foul abuse at me. Until I do I'll reserve denouncing the action of the police when faced with the difficult (and deliberately obstructive) individual who was evidently keen to get his 15 minutes of righteous indignation.0 -
I really don't understand the "the police take abuse off d1ckheads, therefore they should be allowed to 'snap' and assault other people who may have had nothing to do with the people shouting rude words" type of argument. It got wheeled out when Tomlinson was killed.
The police are there to allow protests to take place, not to lash out when someone annoys them. If you're not capable of controlling your temper in a stressful situation, you shouldn't be a police officer.0 -
bails87 wrote:I really don't understand the "the police take abuse off d1ckheads, therefore they should be allowed to 'snap' and assault other people who may have had nothing to do with the people shouting rude words" type of argument. It got wheeled out when Tomlinson was killed.
The police are there to allow protests to take place, not to lash out when someone annoys them. If you're not capable of controlling your temper in a stressful situation, you shouldn't be a police officer.
No, the police are there to prevent breaches of the peace and to keep orderWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
-
Maxticate wrote:From his own blogomehow, me and Finlay managed to weave our way through the police line. We found ourselves in a large no-mans-land, in between the riot police trying to stop the crowd, and the police horses getting ready to charge. I turned in my wheelchair to face the police. “Move out of the way!” one of the mounted police shouted at me. I shook my head.
From the corner of my eye, I spotted one of the policemen from the earlier incident. He recognised me immediately. Officer KF936 came charging towards me. Tipping the wheelchair to the side, he pushed me onto the concrete, before grabbing my arms and dragging me across the road. The crowd of 200 ran and surrounded him. I got back up and stood in front of the horses.
Emphasis above is my own but Jody M's description of what occurred. It looks as though W1 is correct in that they wanted him out of the way. It looks as if it was for his own protection but the implementation of it was done badly. Probably the reason the policeman is being dragged away is because 200 unhappy people were about to surround them.
As an aside I find it very hard to make anything out from the video. It's all dark with lots of panning around and some sort of tussle going on near the floor. I certainly couldn't make any positive id from it of those involved.
Given the statement in red above from his own blog, I can't help but think he was there with a purpose in mind other than simple protest.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Point being that he deliberately faced up to the police and is is quite probably not as disabled as we were initially led to believe.
Protesting is fair enough but I get the distinct impression that he is an anarchist in one form or another, not a victim.
Edit:-
Another quote direct from his blog -
"By now, I can safely say that I am a full-time revolutionary, in the only way I know how to interpret such a word."
Nuff said...........None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
I can't help thinking that this guy can't be used as part of an argument for or against the protest. He was there to cause trouble and to get attention. The police mishandled him, but he put himself into a position that gave them (to their eyes) no other choice. He was looking for conflict and got what he wanted. Perhaps we should just move on?0
-
A policeman in riot gear not wearing any identification, despite, and this is from a met-spokesperson:All officers were briefed before the demonstration that their shoulder numbers should remain visible at all times
and"Whatever Stephenson has done between G20 and now it hasn't sunk in on his officers, and therefore anybody actually found without their numbers on their shoulders should I think at this stage face dismissal. They've had lots of warnings."
So why didn't they?0 -
Furthermore, the majority of the protesters were, not just peaceful, but actively opposed to the violence.
It seems disingenous to paint so many of the people who were there exercising their own right to oppose certain political policies, especially since they were specfically promised that such policies would not occur by a party involved in gov't.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:So why didn't they?
It was a woman.
Why didn't she.
So it looks like 1 out of circa 2,500 wasn't wearing numbers. 0.0004% didn't or 99.9996% did - that's pretty much good enough for me.
Apparently the rioters don't wear any numbers - so 100% of people breaking the law avoid being identified and 99.9996% of people protecting the law are identifiable. My sympathy is with someone who can be identified and stand by their actions.
If you want to help get the rioters nicked, stand away from them and let the police deal with them. The crowd gives cover to the rioters - take that cover away by having nothing to do with them or lump it.
If you want free protests you can have them, the anti war march, countryside march, the big Tamil sit in etc, no trouble, no drama. Free and peaceful protests don't get the treatment seen here as they haven't needed it.
These demos are now certain to be used as cover for rioters - how will the protestors stop this, get their point across and not allow their cause to be hijacked and have their numbers subject to robust crowd control?
Or is this a Policing problem?Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
As I understand it, it is up to the police to protect the rights of people right?
If rioters are using the legitimate protests as a vehicle for illegitimate actions, i.e. rioting, then surely the police should be trying to sort that out, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
There are hundreds of stories of very peaceful protesters who have been 'kettled' in with one or two rioters, and then having to deal with their violence.
Now, there may very well be public order issues, but the police should be able to sort it out.
They do it with football every weekend.
I also get the impression that there, for some police, there is a hint of vindication. "You humilated us with the Tory HQ thing, now it's payback". That was the impression quite a few people had to went there, from what I have heard and seen.
You would also imagine, a typical, stereotypical policeman would be likely to be more sympathetic to the centre right and right views of the hunting ban, or the anti-war protests, which spanned the politcal spectrum, over issues with students.
As for the policeman (policewomen is not a term used anymore is it? A bit like actress...) without a number - that's just a policeman who got caught on camera. The question really lies, given that they were told they must wear numbers for identification and accountability for their actions, why they didint'? In that uniform without identifaction, you cannot be held accountable and can thus get away with behaviour yo otherwise wouldn't.
Given the police's success with football hooliganism, I'm surprised to see such inability to deal with a laregely peaceful march, littered with a few rioters.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Furthermore, the majority of the protesters were, not just peaceful, but actively opposed to the violence.
Is that right, eh? Any basis for that statement?
I didn't see much evidence of any of the protesters "opposing" the violence. In fact the organisational bodies representing students have been particularly silent in their condemnation. All I've seen so far is some children protecting an already trashed police van.
As for that Clare Solomon thing (aged 37) it seems that she purports to speak on behalf of plenty of students, and is actively supporting (and partaking) in "direct action".
Maybe some of the majority of the protestors who were peaceful should be more vocal in their condemnation of those who have hi-jacked their cause? Because they don't seem to be that keen to court the publicity when compared to their more "active" colleagues...0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:As I understand it, it is up to the police to protect the rights of people right?
If rioters are using the legitimate protests as a vehicle for illegitimate actions, i.e. rioting, then surely the police should be trying to sort that out, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
There are hundreds of stories of very peaceful protesters who have been 'kettled' in with one or two rioters, and then having to deal with their violence.
Now, there may very well be public order issues, but the police should be able to sort it out.
They do it with football every weekend.
I also get the impression that there, for some police, there is a hint of vindication. "You humilated us with the Tory HQ thing, now it's payback". That was the impression quite a few people had to went there, from what I have heard and seen.
You would also imagine, a typical, stereotypical policeman would be likely to be more sympathetic to the centre right and right views of the hunting ban, or the anti-war protests, which spanned the politcal spectrum, over issues with students.
As for the policeman (policewomen is not a term used anymore is it? A bit like actress...) without a number - that's just a policeman who got caught on camera. The question really lies, given that they were told they must wear numbers for identification and accountability for their actions, why they didint'? In that uniform without identifaction, you cannot be held accountable and can thus get away with behaviour yo otherwise wouldn't.
Given the police's success with football hooliganism, I'm surprised to see such inability to deal with a laregely peaceful march, littered with a few rioters.
It's impossible to only kettle the rioters - they don't just split up into easily identified groups you know! Do you really think that's a plausible suggestion?
And if you think a policeman will take a brick to the face from a countryside alliance member without reaction, but would bash any student who did the same, then I think you ought to think again!
And again," littered with a few rioters"? That's not true from what I've seen....0 -
they do it every weekend at the football?W1 wrote:It's impossible to only kettle the rioters - they don't just split up into easily identified groups you know! Do you really think that's a plausible suggestion?
true, but, let's be honest, the fox-hunting ban affects less people and is less of a political flashpoint as this. It's an issue when everyone is making cash hand-over-fist.And if you think a policeman will take a brick to the face from a countryside alliance member without reaction, but would bash any student who did the same, then I think you ought to think again!And again," littered with a few rioters"? That's not true from what I've seen....
I'll go on the guardian reports for now, since they're the ones I know, who are a bit more discerning with their sources than some other papers.
Live blog: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/blo ... e-coverage
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... test-story
and a little summary and comment on the press coverage of the violence, or lack of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... ss-comment0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Given the police's success with football hooliganism, I'm surprised to see such inability to deal with a laregely peaceful march, littered with a few rioters.
Football crowds are no longer violent - I've been told that part of the reason is full seating stadiums and CCTV. Someone causes problems - you find them on CCTV in the stadium - you know where they sit and their credit card details. But I digress.
Ok so it's not the job of the protestors to sort it out or help it's just a Policing problem.
If all you are talking about is tactics then we can have a chat about how to split up a violent and uncooperative bunch of rioters from their covering crowd.
How many rioters are there? Rioters here is anyone who will interfere with the Police in an arrest action?
Lets say 200 rioters.
How many plod per rioter will you need to arrest them? Have you ever tried to subdue someone? I think you need 6 plod per rioter. minimum.
You'll need therefore 1,200 plod to effect arrests. Now then - you'll also need to hold the cordon to prevent the rioters running away and smashing up town.
A number I saw was 2,500 plod containing parliament sq.
So we need 3,700 tooled up Plod.
No then - we have to split up the rioters from their cover - perhaps they'll form a block and let it happen? Or perhaps they'll mingle. You can't split up plod in a riot as they'll get picked off.
So - we are faced with a problem. Thousands of people - the majority of whom are peaceful but unhelpful and 200 rioters.
Shall we deploy our 1,200 arrest plod across the frontage and directly confront anyone they suspect of riot and arrest them? Can you imagine the carnage? Can you imagine the number of perfectly innocent people who get mugged and restrained?
I'd not like to see that. So perhaps Snatch Squads? Very dangerous for all concerned the target will get filled in, their mates will try to stop it and Plod will take a kickiing - very bad on TV...
So quandary - kick it off massively - really inflame things but nick loads of people or contain it and take loads of pictures?
How would you effect an arrest action on 200 rioters in a crowd of several thousand in parliament Sq?Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
A few things.
Firstly, your maths - I'd assume a team of police can arrest more than one rioter per protest?
Secondly - like in football, can't the police identify them before they turn up? Sort it out that way?
If they are serious and frequent rioters, which many seemed to be, why can they not pick them up before?
Especially after one or two protests, it should be clear how it/they works.0 -
Maybe it would help if the protesters as well as the police were clearly identifiable via numbers. If you are willing to protest something then you should be willing to stand up and be counted for it.
If all the serious demostrators/protesters wore identification numbers clearly then rioters or people who try to join the protest just to cause trouble could be singled out more quickly and removed. You could have all those wishing to join the organised demonstration sign up via a website and then receive a demonstration number which they can wear at the event. Just like the London Marathon.
Of course I can't see this working in any real sense as people like to protest under cover of annonymity.
How come just the police should be held accountable for their actions when violent protesters can vanish into the mob after commiting heinous acts and be forgotten about?0 -
Maxticate wrote:How come just the police should be held accountable for their actions when violent protesters can vanish into the mob after commiting heinous acts and be forgotten about?
Because police/state have a legal monopoly on violence.
They are allowed to hit people with battons. They are representitives of the state.
The public is not.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:A few things.
Firstly, your maths - I'd assume a team of police can arrest more than one rioter per protest?
Secondly - like in football, can't the police identify them before they turn up? Sort it out that way?
If they are serious and frequent rioters, which many seemed to be, why can they not pick them up before?
Especially after one or two protests, it should be clear how it/they works.
Snatch quads then.
OK. So you want lets say 10 squads of ten? They'll need a couple of shifts as hand to hand fighting is tiring and dangerous so they'll be knackered and injured.
let's say 500 more.
As for pre-empively nicking them - how do you know who they are? They don't wear numbers and aren't buying their riot tickets with credit cards.
Also they cover their faces - as do lots of protestors - just to be unhelpful.
So the people you want to nick avoid being identified. Bit of a problem that. So I'm assuming you'd want evidence of an offence prior to arrest? that's a problem too.
They know what they are doing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... ite-closed
So - a couple of weeks isn't enough to pick off the rioters and stop them turning up - if you only have 200 nut jobs in the country who fancy it.
So - how are you going to Police this Demo / riot then - right now we have kettling and aggresive snatch squads - sounds worse to me.Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
they do it every weekend at the football?W1 wrote:It's impossible to only kettle the rioters - they don't just split up into easily identified groups you know! Do you really think that's a plausible suggestion?
true, but, let's be honest, the fox-hunting ban affects less people and is less of a political flashpoint as this. It's an issue when everyone is making cash hand-over-fist.And if you think a policeman will take a brick to the face from a countryside alliance member without reaction, but would bash any student who did the same, then I think you ought to think again!And again," littered with a few rioters"? That's not true from what I've seen....
I'll go on the guardian reports for now, since they're the ones I know, who are a bit more discerning with their sources than some other papers.
Live blog: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/blo ... e-coverage
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... test-story
and a little summary and comment on the press coverage of the violence, or lack of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... ss-comment
Ah, so now what you're saying is not that the police take a political stance but that the students are more likely to be violent than a country bumpkin. I other words, the police react to the violence and not the polititcs. Good, I agree.
As to the Guarfian being more discerning, they had Charlie Gilmour writing for them, so if you don't mind I won't take anything they say as "evidece" or facts.
You're either deluded or laughable if you're tryying to argue that there were only a few rioters last week. There were clearly hundreds (albeit still a minority).
And still nothing to support your contention that the majority of the peaceful protesters activelyopposed the violence?0 -
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that this is surprisingly similar to football issues which the police have soft, effective tactics for, where they do their upmost to stop aggrovating the situation. Anyone can see that that didn't happen this time, or at any other of the protests.Greg T wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:A few things.
Firstly, your maths - I'd assume a team of police can arrest more than one rioter per protest?
Secondly - like in football, can't the police identify them before they turn up? Sort it out that way?
If they are serious and frequent rioters, which many seemed to be, why can they not pick them up before?
Especially after one or two protests, it should be clear how it/they works.
Snatch quads then.
OK. So you want lets say 10 squads of ten? They'll need a couple of shifts as hand to hand fighting is tiring and dangerous so they'll be knackered and injured.
let's say 500 more.
As for pre-empively nicking them - how do you know who they are? They don't wear numbers and aren't buying their riot tickets with credit cards.
Also they cover their faces - as do lots of protestors - just to be unhelpful.
So the people you want to nick avoid being identified. Bit of a problem that. So I'm assuming you'd want evidence of an offence prior to arrest? that's a problem too.
They know what they are doing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... ite-closed
So - a couple of weeks isn't enough to pick off the rioters and stop them turning up - if you only have 200 nut jobs in the country who fancy it.
So - how are you going to Police this Demo / riot then - right now we have kettling and aggresive snatch squads - sounds worse to me.
"Kettling", by its very term, aggrovates people.
Ultimately this will boil down to an ideological preference. I don't particularly feel empathy towards authority since they have a monopoly on power, and, in such an entrusted position, have the responsibilty to behave approprately. What we consider appropriate is cleraly different, since I feel they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and alienated a lot of responsible people, as well as, in occasional specific instances, used their monopoly of power to do unjust things - humilating a disabled teenager - giving soemone else internal bleeding in the brain.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:You're putting words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that this is surprisingly similar to football issues which the police have soft, effective tactics for, where they do their upmost to stop aggrovating the situation. Anyone can see that that didn't happen this time, or at any other of the protests.
"Kettling", by its very term, aggrovates people.
Ultimately this will boil down to an ideological preference. I don't particularly feel empathy towards authority since they have a monopoly on power, and, in such an entrusted position, have the responsibilty to behave approprately. What we consider appropriate is cleraly different, since I feel they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and alienated a lot of responsible people, as well as, in occasional specific instances, used their monopoly of power to do unjust things - humilating a disabled teenager - giving soemone else internal bleeding in the brain.
Other protests:
Countryside Alliance
Anti War
Tamil Sit in
and how many other protests have marched down Whitehall and not been kettled? Hundreds?
kettling didn't cause the aggro - teh aggro came first.
You offer no solution as to how to Police a riot / demo. Apart from rounding people up pre-emptively.
So right now - the tactics used seem to be the best available the violence was a dead certainty.
You can dislike the tactics all you like but you've got nothing better.Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
"Violence is a bad idea" isn't massive news. Seeing a police van getting trashed is more interesting. It's like when people talk about religious extremists and say "well where are all the so called moderate people who are against violence, you don't hear them speaking out do you?".
Except if you looked for it, you'd find it. But reporters show the interesting/shocking stuff. A hook handed maniac shouting "death to the infidels" is more interesting than a moderate religious leader saying "we don't agree with him, don't listen to what he says". It's the same with people not taking part in the violence, or telling others not to.
I can just see the headlines: "Police not attacked as students don't riot"0
