[/quote]From the video footage, I can see that the woman is being loud and disruptive, but I didn't see her behave in a threatening manner towards the Smellie one. Come on; a 5 foot something, 8 stone woman, against a 6 foot plus, body armoured up bloke twice her weight?? And he felt 'threatened'? Do me a favour! Stick him up against some tooled up football hooligans, and then see how free he is with his baton. The bloke's a coward and a bully, little more than a hired thug.

To that I agree. I think that if you can't hanlde the pression off your job you just shouldn't join the force full stop. As shown in the thread following the G20 threads, footage of cops acting peacefully and not threatening people are far more efficient than idiotic moron in body armor giving the stick with no reason. I bet a lot of people on here would have done the same, provided the opponent was smallest and carrying no weapon. I can't believe some bloke (oh and indeed our stw women in blue) believe that hitting someone just because you can is acceptable. I wonder if he still is so "brave" when he has to get someone his size who has a stick too…

EDIT has for going to court what a clever idea, so the cops will have your address and be able to come every day to bully you. I think I'll pass too…

Above all I was entertained by the irony Talkemada… However you don't need to use the word to invoke it… The implication was pretty uncalled for…

Wibble…

The other thing I would add is that numerous protestors at G20 came with masks and weapons specifically for the purpose of fighting officers and trying to injure them, including rocks, spark plugs and glass bottles full of piss. Violent protest is never nice and unpleasant things happen on both sides of the fence. Suggesting that all the police do is go around whacking perfectly innocent little ladies is ignorance of the highest order.

The other thing you add is irrelevant as she was armed with a camera and a carton of orange juice as far as I remember (cant be bothered to look again), she wasnt being violent just abnoxious and annoying. Is it right to hit someone for being annoying. IMO opinion maybe but not with a stick, the smack in the face was his first mistake. Beggars belief that the police can be so poorly trained at dealing with people.

The SAS, the Paras the Police and the rabbit

The SAS, the Parachute Regiment and the Police decide to go on a survival weekend together to see who comes out on top. After some basic
exercises the trainer tells them that their next objective is to go down into the woods and catch a rabbit, returning with it ready
to skin and cook.

Night falls.

First up – the SAS.

They don infrared goggles, drop to the ground and crawl into the woods in formation. Absolute silence for 5 minutes, followed by the
unmistakable muffled "phut-phut" of their trademark silenced "double-tap".

They emerge with a large rabbit shot cleanly between the eyes.

"Excellent!" remarks the trainer.

Next up – the Paras.

They finish their cans of lager, smear themselves with camouflage cream, fix bayonets and charge down into the woods, screaming at the
top of their lungs. For the next hour the woods ring with the sound of rifle and machine-gun fire, hand grenades, mortar bombs and blood curdling
war cries. Eventually they emerge, carrying the charred remains of a rabbit.

"A bit messy, but you achieved the aim; well done," says the trainer.

Lastly, in go the coppers, walking slowly, hands behind backs whistling Dixon of Dock Green. For the next few hours, the silence is only broken
by the occasional crackle of a walkie-talkie "Sierra Lima Whisky Tango Foxtrot One, suspect headed straight for you…" etc.

After what seems an eternity, they emerge escorting a squirrel in handcuffs.

"What the hell do you think you're doing?" asks the incredulous trainer, "Take this squirrel back and get me a rabbit like I asked you five
hours ago!"

So back they go. Minutes pass. Minutes turn to hours, night drags on and turns to day. The next morning, the trainer and the other teams are
awakened by the police, holding the handcuffed squirrel, now covered in bruises, one eye nearly shut.

"Are you taking the piss!!??" screams the now seriously irate trainer.

The police team leader nudges the squirrel, who squeaks:

"Alright, alright, I'm a fekin' rabbit!"

Time to put some fun back on the subject

The other thing you add is irrelevant as she was armed with a camera and a carton of orange juice

You clearly don't understand the law – what matters is what the police officer honestly believed to be the threat he was under at the time – if he had been briefed that there were provocateurs amongst the crowd that were looking to cause trouble and cause a breakdown in law and order, then his perception of events and his belief of the likely threat, and the fact that she may be armed are entirely relevant.

Given the evidence of the (independent) office workers, called by the prosecution, who made it clear that this hysterical little harpie was acting in an inflammatory manner to do exactly that, then clearly Sgt Smellie may have thought she was a threat to himself and public order in general

You clearly don't understand the law

And you do, I suppose? Are you a lawyer?

Talkemada, sorry, are you telling me that I'm wrong in my interpretation of the law as it stands?

I mean, you're welcome to read the caselaw for yourself…

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1983/4.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1998/1771.html
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1970/2.html

… or take account of the simple fact that Sgt Smellie was cleared!

Are you a lawyer? Simple question, like…

You clearly don't understand the law

No I dont nor do I really care. The law says the bloke was not guilty of anything so that will do me, doesnt stop me thinking he's either poorly trained or an idiot or both. If I thought a small female hippy was about to attack me with a spark plug (???) I wouldnt cuff her with the back of me hand, I'd hit her hard so that she wouldnt get up again. He was just n idiot who got annoyed with someone and cuffed her one and then had to back it up with a smack with a stick. As I said the cuff was the first mistake. If someone is acting in an inflamatory manner be shouting ignore them, dont let the situation become inflammed like he did.

seems to be a crime now to be found not guilty, stupid cow was there for one thing to cause trouble end of,

stupid cow was there for one thing to cause trouble end of,

Really? You know this, do you? Funny, I don't see that she's actually charged with any offence, do you? I'm sure, that if she was as you suggest, just there to cause trouble, then she would have been brought to trial and found guilty, right? 🙄

It really is a shame, that so many people swallow the bull spread by the right-wing media, without actually trying to think for themselves, for a change… 🙁

i love the fact that alot of people reckon cos she's a 5ft woman that she cant cause any harm. She was also surrounded by a large group of also very irrate people. The copper made a call of judgement and took it. Well done to him.

What did you learn in school today,
Dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today,
Dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends.
I learned that justice never ends.
I learned that murderers die for their crimes.
Even if we make a mistake sometimes.
That's what I learned in school today.
That's what I learned in school.

What did you learn in school today,
Dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today,
Dear little boy of mine?
I learned our government must be strong.
It's always right and never wrong.
Our leaders are the finest men.
And we elect them again and again.
That's what I learned in school today.
That's what I learned in school.

any of you stand the line in riot gear , its a scary place to be,i stand by what i said.

I have been many in similar situations, and must say I've been quite disturbed and saddened by the actions of some police officers.

As you have been in many similar situations, are you not equally saddened by the actions of some protesters against people who are going about their lawful duty? You appear to be totally discounting the weight of evidence which says that the policeman was justified in his actions because it doesn't fit with your perception of reasonable force in policing. The fact that this was a small woman is entirely irrelevant. As for your assertion that he is a cowardly bully, I observe the police at fairly close quarters on a regular basis and I'm sure that given the choice, most would prefer a 'football hooligan' to a small woman who may or may not use a can/camera as a weapon.

Presumably you are not a racist, unfotunately I missed out the question mark when I said that, you are however incredibly narrow minded and refuse to see the situation from another perspective because it interferes with your political beliefs and apparent indoctrination that all police are evil thugs.

Hang on, just trying to get me mind through the eye of a needle..

…nnnggg…

Nope, it won't go through.

What?

Oh. Yes, I have been saddened and angered by the actions of a very small minority of idiots, who have seemed intent on provoking a ruck. Interestingly, when it has kicked off, they've been nowhere to be seen. I do once remember seeing one Agent Provocateur having a friendly chat with some coppers down a side street, following one big off…

In my experience, the vast majority of demonstrators are peaceful and law-abiding. I have been told, more than once, to 'stop taking pictures'. This action in itself wasn't actually illegal, so I was perplexed why police officers, those charged with upholding Law and Order, were telling me this.

The G20 protests were always going to kick off. Unfortunately for the police, their provocative and inflammatory actions were exposed. Hurray for YouTube..

Don't be so naive to think the police are always perfect and exemplary in their behaviour. As I mentioned before, an innocent man was killed by police that day.

You can sit their behind your lace curtains, grumbling about 'undesirables', and expressing blinkered, biased opinions about people you know nothing about, you can believe what you're told to believe, but you can also think for yourself.

Give it a go, it's quite liberating.

Some observations from personal experience.

1) The press do not always cover all the facts and can omit bits of video.
2) Folk are very keen to presume that a persons size and their potential
danger are related.
3) Police often have to make a decision based on information gathered
in a split second.
4) This information causes them to make a decision on what they BELIEVE
to be right at that time. This decision CAN be the wrong one.
5) It is very difficult, if not impossible; in a public order situation
to assess everything happening.
6) Officers will be (quite rightly) asked to justify their
actions, however this will be to people who have had hindsight and
the luxury of going over the scenario again and again and again.

I won't get involved in commenting on this individual case as I, along with everyone else who hasn't had any personal involvement; do not know the full facts as to what actually went on.

Talkemada
LOL I was going to answer the points you made but I'm bored now and your own phrase

expressing blinkered, biased opinions about people you know nothing about,

seems to sum up quite succinctly what I was going to say………….. 😉

Was it? Then we have something in common!

Want a hug? 😀

No thanks, I might like it and next thing you know I'll be swooning at Peter Tatchell, voting labour and running off to join Greenpeace. 😆

Is it time to mention this?

Above all, the police must constantly remember that those who protest on Britain’s streets are not criminals but citizens motivated by moral principles, exercising their democratic rights.

The police’s doctrine must remain focused on allowing this protest to happen peacefully. Any action which may be viewed by the general public as the police criminalising protest on the streets must be avoided at all costs.

from here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/418/418.pdf

That wouldn't be so bad.

Well, the voting Labour bit you could leave out… 😉

Listening to you talk Talkemada you make it sound it like its all The Old Bills fault & nothing to do with some lary & fired up mob intent on a fight. Dont tell me that folk who went down to that protest werent looking for some ag! Alright they have a right to protest & I would defend that right to the hilt bit you are so one sided its untrue..Get some perspective mate, if you are going to put yourself in a volatile situation like that where its known that there will be elements on both sides up for a scrap AND hope to walk away unhurt then you're a fool & naive. The Worlds not perfect & you have to exercise a little bit of judgement on where & when to make a stand. That was a powder keg of an environment, it could have been a lot, lot worse..(with respect to Mr Ian Tomlinson).

In my experience, the vast majority of demonstrators are peaceful and law-abiding. I have been told, more than once, to 'stop taking pictures'. This action in itself wasn't actually illegal, so I was perplexed why police officers, those charged with upholding Law and Order, were telling me this.

Did they say you were breaking the law or were they fed up with your flash going off in their face every 10-seconds?

I'm curious to know whether you provide any of the photos you take to help proscecute Protesters who do break the law and don't protest peacefully or do you only photograph the Police?

FFS, I knew I shouldn't have read this 😕

For me, kettling seems likely to turn even fairly reasonable people into tetchy, aggressive gits eventually – crowd and coppers both

Sadly it's a shit tactic that, I think, was brought in after some free-roaming tossers graffitied the cenotaph (or something) a few years back wasn't it

so then it's HITLER's* fault

*does that mean we can all stop crapping on or is autoGodwin not allowed ?

I haven't read any of this thread but, RE :

I'm curious to know whether you provide any of the photos you take to help proscecute Protesters who do break the law

I think you'll find that the Met is perfectly capable of taking all the photos they require.
Have you ever been on a demo in London ?

This sort of gear doesn't suggest that they need to rely on people's mobile phone pictures.

You clearly don't understand the law

It's simple. You get arsey with the cops, they get arsey with you.

Anyway I thought the thread was "Coppers get off on hitting women"

Talkemada, you are mental…

Zulu-Eleven "You clearly don't understand the law – what matters is what the police officer honestly believed to be the threat he was under at the time "

And this we just accept to be true. When you look at the baton strike, does that look like a man afraid of being attacked? I don't believe for a second he felt under threat, I think he was just angry and frustrated and probably knackered, but saying he felt threatened is purely a nice excuse.

Did they say you were breaking the law or were they fed up with your flash going off in their face every 10-seconds?

Well in both cases, that doesn't justify any physical action. It is not unlawful to take a picture of a copper even every 10 second. If you don't like that well you can always resign and work at a KFC where you'll be less likely to have pictures of you taken. That would imply indeed that you have the skills necessary to work at a KFC.

Re the size of the women, true she might have been a world class martial art kick ass. However the fact they have riot gear means very little is dangerous to them.

It is funny how copper seems to "choose their victims". When there is a student protest (always peaceful I shall say) they are quite happy to charge (specially on feminine students). When during such protest, people from suburbs come to go and have one with the students they do nothing (I am very sadden to say you can clearly make a difference between the students and the trouble makers too). When it's a protest from says diggers they don't seems to want to charge either.
I have lost all faith in coppers. I actually now cross the street if I see one just in case.

Some on here have missed the point, whilst the footage makes the cop seem like a thug and maybe he is a thug, but he is a legalised thug. The problem here is with the law and those who run the police service in this country.

If the outcome of this event concerns you (as it does me) then what you (we) should really do is campaign to change the way protests are policed and to change the licensing of violence as method of "control" by the police.

she wasnt being violent just abnoxious and annoying

Sounds like a good reason for a slap to me! 😉

Northwind

And this we just accept to be true. When you look at the baton strike, does that look like a man afraid of being attacked? I don't believe for a second he felt under threat, I think he was just angry and frustrated and probably knackered, but saying he felt threatened is purely a nice excuse.

Seems that a judge and two magistrates, after watching the recordings and listening to the evidence of the independent witnesses thought otherwise. See, they took into account the evidence before making a judgement, rather than telling us what they thought after watching a few seconds of video – thats why its great to have a court system…

Some observations from personal experience.

1) The press do not always cover all the facts and can omit bits of video.
2) Folk are very keen to presume that a persons size and their potential
danger are related.
3) Police often have to make a decision based on information gathered
in a split second.
4) This information causes them to make a decision on what they BELIEVE
to be right at that time. This decision CAN be the wrong one.
5) It is very difficult, if not impossible; in a public order situation
to assess everything happening.
6) Officers will be (quite rightly) asked to justify their
actions, however this will be to people who have had hindsight and
the luxury of going over the scenario again and again and again.

Spot on. IMO the copper in question made the wrong decision judging by the footage I've seen, but he has been bought to court so it seems like the law works. I would hope though that as a UK citizen with a right to protest peacefully (which includes shouting at coppers if I want to) I wouldnt get hit with a stick for simply being annoying. I would like my countries police force to be better trained and more able to control themselves when provoked by small women armed with phones and a carton of orange juice. I have to deal with the odd physical confrontation in my job and walking up to someone clearly agitated who is trying to provoke a response and cuffing them about the ear is not something I'd do. He only had to hit her swith the stick because he got the first bit wrong in my view.

I think that nobody is perfect, but in that situation, the police have to be aggressive to control the situation. Its well known that if you be namby pamby about a situation, its can get out of control very quickly. I dont have a problem with the coppers actions at all, as in general I want to live in a society where people have boundaries and handle their disputes through the courts or the media/politicians. Although admittedly it can get frustrating if you feel like your not being listened to.

Wasnt that Officer under disciplinary proceedures/dismissed from another force previously?

Anyway, I bet he wouldn't have hit Techno Viking huh?

Come on; a 5 foot something, 8 stone woman, against a 6 foot plus, body armoured up bloke twice her weight?? And he felt 'threatened'? Do me a favour!

I wonder how many people posting on here have had urine thrown at them, been spat at, had bleach squirted at them and so on and so on. Those things are fairly routine for officers on this kind of duty.

The situation here is very simple. There is an absolute right to protest, no question about that. There is however no reason to riot nor to disobey a reasonable request or instruction from a Police officer in the course of his duty. This woman is clearly being extremely aggressive and provocative, and having been told to sling her hook several times persisted in having a go at the guy in a very volatile situation. The fact that a small female is having a go at a large tooled up bloke in body armour tends to indicate that she is either potty, or looking for a PR success. The reality here is that she clearly got the latter, and that is entirely regretable IMHO. As stated previously, I object very strongly to the fact that my civil rights are being eroded and my right to protest has been diminished, but not by the Police, its prats like her who are doing the damage.

Watch the clip and look what the copper does afterwards. He totally ignores her, and immediately returns to scanning the crowd and to controlling the situation. i.e. he has neutralised the threat and is getting on with his job. If he is in fact being investigated for other issues, I can assure you he will have thought very hard about his actions, especially being fully aware that every second of it would be on camera. His career and potentially freedom would depend on it and he will be judged much more thoroughly than she ever will. Not only in court, but independantly of that by the force, and probably also involving the Police complaints authority.

I wonder how many people posting on here have had urine thrown at them, been spat at, had bleach squirted at them and so on and so on. Those things are fairly routine for officers on this kind of duty.

I remember watching and reading about the Countryside Alliance march and the treatment of the protesters. I for one do not agree with what the Protesters wanted to achieve however I was disgusted at how they were treated by the Police in attendance.

There is a fine balancing act however the Police are there to serve the people first. Not Politicians or their own violent urges.

Democracy and voice first. Always first. So what if a few 'Anarchists' pop up occasionally? It comes with the territory doesn't it?

Amazing how many people on this thread are talking about stuff they have very little experience of and based on a very limited understanding of the circumstances involved. Some of the people commenting here weren't present. Some of you who are talking authoritatively on the behaviour of the British police don't even live in the U.K! anagallis_arvensis you honestly believe that protestors turning up armed with the intention of hurting officers is irrelevant in this case? Just crazy.

I was at G20 and it is not as simple as big nasty man hits small innocent girl. It is true that certain officers go over the top and use excessive force on occassion and it's deplorable. In my experience the majority of the times this has happened the individual officers have been disciplined or charged with an offence. On the flip side I personally know a female officer who is 5ft2 who was throttled round the neck so hard by a lovely cuddly protestor at G20 that she almost passed out, had to have hospital treatment and take weeks off work. That never gets reported though does it? I would be interested to see if the perspective of some of the more vocal anti-police posters here would change if they were placed in the position of some of the officers that day.

Re Kettling – I agree with some of the comments on here around Kettling. I don't think the tactic is particularly conducive to maintaining good relations between police and protestors. At G20 I think this tactic was used too quickly and this contributed to some of the violence seen on both sides of the fence.

Amazing how many people on this thread are talking about stuff they have very little experience of and based on a very limited understanding of the circumstances involved. Some of the people commenting here weren't present.

are you suggesting we limit all conversation to stuff we have first hand experience of?