[Closed] Is Kettling Morally Wrong?

But you weren't and there is no reason to belive you would have been, and hey maybe the police who prevented the brick throwing "peaceful" protesters going where they wanted causing more damage, actually saved you and your family from injury!

There was a VERY good reason to believe we might be caught up in it, given our location. The police, as I said, appeared to be doing a good job. Had they decided to contain the violence by kettling in our location, that would IMO have been a very bad job 8O.

Elfin you're quite right we're done, clearly you and only you are right you just enjoy causing trouble and exploiting a situation to do it, well done you!

I do actually enjoy causing trouble, you are quite correct!

But far more importantly, you are correct in the recognition of the fact I am right. I always am; ask anyone on here. 😀

maybe the police who prevented the brick throwing "peaceful" protesters going where they wanted causing more damage, actually saved you and your family from injury!

those that organise the demos take no responsibility for who turns up or what they do.

El-bent a march can be banned but a static demo can't. FACT

I'm still waiting for anyone to suggest a viable and practical alternative.

The Met police managed perfectly OK for nearly 200 years until the start of the Iraq War without using the kettling tactic.

How do you suppose they managed ?

Ernie they've bin using it for a lot longer, it's just that there's more media coverage these days.

I'm all for kettling the media

Ernie they've bin using it for a lot longer

Not in my experience. The first examples I ever saw of kettling by the Met was at the anti-Iraq demos.

One of the reasons it was so effect was because demonstrators did not know what the police were doing when they started corralling them. Now every one knows when the police are starting a kettle - that in itself causes problem.

The Met never used the tacit before the Iraq War - not even at Wapping, which were the most violent demos I've ever attended.

When do you think kettling was first used ?

Well I remember the police using identical tactics during Criminal Justice Bill demos back in't early 90s. It weren't called 'kettling' back then though.

There was a [i]lot[/i] of violence. Thing is, people din't have tiny camcorders, 'phonecams, that sort of thing back then. So much of it went unnoticed by the media and the rest of Britain.

In my onion, the police today are actually a good deal more restrained, as they are only too aware of the amount of media scrutiny aimed at them. 15-20 years ago, all sorts went on. I seen some shocking things.

ernie_lynch - Member

Not in my experience. The first examples I ever saw of kettling by the Met was at the anti-Iraq demos.

Oldest example I can think of was the cja demo in 94. Though that wasn't your classic close kettling it's the same MO.

Elfinsafety - Member

There was a lot of violence. Thing is, people din't have tiny camcorders, 'phonecams, that sort of thing back then. So much of it went unnoticed by the media and the rest of Britain.

Would have been even less reporting if the Met hadn't accidentally beaten the **** out of a couple of journalists 😆

Well as I said, they most definitely didn't use kettling at Wapping, despite the fact they used plenty of truly nasty tactics there.

But anyway, if you want to bring forward the introduction of kettling by 10 years it make no odds to me.

And I'll inform the geezer who keeps demanding to know of "a viable and practical alternative"............[i]The Met police managed perfectly OK for nearly 200 years until the Criminal Justice Bill demos back in the early 90s without using the kettling tactic.[/i]

How do you suppose they managed ?

The police have both the power and the duty to control an assembly this I assume is what you mean by "kettling" this comes from the Public Order Act.

Kettling is not the same as police powers under s14 of the Public Order Act, and those powers may only be exercised if the conditions in s14(1) (a) and (b) have been satisfied.

The Public Order Act does not create a duty on the police to control assemblies.

The power to kettle doesn't come from the Public Order Act. It's the common law power to prevent a breach of the peace which is being exercised.

Couple of posters referring to the illegality of kettling. It is not illegal.

The legality depends on the circumstances, manner and purpose for which it is exercised.

Poll tax riots in Scotland 89 Kettling was used.

The Met police managed perfectly OK for nearly 200 years until the start of the Iraq War without using the kettling tactic.

How do you suppose they managed ?

Psst...Ernie; Peterloo!

The kettling tactic may have had it's day anyway. Not because of any legal ruling or change of heart by senior politicians, sorry I meant police officers. Kettling is likely to be dropped because it doesn't work.

Have any of you heard of Sukey? No?

Social media and mobile technology allow demonstrators to share info on police tactics in real time and adjust accordingly. This has happened at the last 3 or 4 protests. The police are totally out of their depth when it comes to this kind of stuff and I'd put money on it being why they adopted a more cautious approach on saturday.

Lastly regarding to stuff about the mentality of both 'sides'. The reason that protesting has evolved faster than policing is easy to explain. They live and breath it, the police get paid to be there. The idea that violence is carried out by thugs is bollocks. This is not violence against society, it's against the state - a different thing entirely and outside the remit of your average thug.

As GSH said 'the revolution will not be televised'. It will however be on twitter.

Sukey knows, and it really is just a beginning.

Oh and in case people aren't aware, the police themselves got kettled on Saturday. The trojan horse should have been a clue but there we go...

This is not violence against society, it's against the state

Psst...Ernie; Peterloo!

Well if you want to use Britain's "Tiemann Square" as an example of a tactic used by the Met until it adopted kettling, then I think it might be slightly flawed.

First of all it was the army not the police who carried out the massacre, secondly it occurred in Manchester not in the Met region, and finally, it all happened many years before Britain even had a police force. Other than that it's quite a good example.

Although I still want to know how the Met managed for almost 200 years without using kettling.

you know the answer ernie. its name is whitehall

Well,10 the met is not 200 years old.
Re Peterloo...I know,I was taking the pee.However...it is an alternative,you have to admit it.Just think;police not receiving negative press,in fact people delighted to be kettled instead of sabred to the ground.Would you stop to write pithy remarks on Nelsons column if drunk cavalry were forming up at the other end of the square? I like the Tiemann Square comparison though.

Pre-emptive collective punishment. Yes it is morally wrong.

No idea whether legal or not - but certainly morally reprehensible outside of very limited, closely defined circumstances.

The clue really is in the name - I don't know whether this moniker was applied by the Police or the media.

If the Police came up with the name for this tactic then it really does suggest a desire to deploy aggresive action against members of the public.

The very idea of the kettle (kessel as used by the Wehrmacht) is to cut off and isolate a large pocket, deny any exit or reinforcement and then [b][i]apply heat[/i] until it boils.[/b] ie apply pressure until the contained collapse or fight their way out.

Applied in civil situations it seems an approach gauaranteed to result in violence.

This seemed quite strange is it standard practise to keep clothes/phones of people charged with aggravated trespass?

[url= http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2011/03/my-day-in-the-cells ]My day in the cells[/url]

the met is not 200 years old

Ah, that will probably explain why I used the terms "nearly 200 years" and "almost 200 years" then.

Because of course the Met is not 200 years old..........as everyone knows, it's 192 years old.

is it standard practise to keep clothes/phones of people charged with aggravated trespass?

I'm just guessing but I would assume the argument would be that they kept the phone as evidence because they thought/hoped it would be full of text messages saying "let's trespass and disrupt/obstruct/intimidate those bastards at Fortnum's". (You need to show disruption/obstruction of legal activity or intimidation of people doing it to make out Agg Trespass).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68

NFI how the clothes come into it, though.

Lifer,how is stopping the ruling classes buying really expensive pate going to stick it to "the man"?

Ernie,you don't have sole user licence for pedantry...182 years old,actually.

Clothes might be seized if relevant to identifying someone. (Or forensics, but would guess at ID for aggravated trespass). Eg. footage of anti-capitalists with balaclava but distinctive Nike tracksuit, say.
(Can't get the link, assuming it's about an arrested protester of some sort).

duckman - Member
Lifer,how is stopping the ruling classes buying really expensive pate going to stick it to "the man"?

Eh?

@thegreatape - yeah UKUncut protester, videoed and questioned at the scene so ID isn't a problem.

Don't know then.

Surely the key point is that the 'kettle' was not imposed until [b]after[/b] the violence had broken out?

you cannot blame the kettle for the outbreak of violence, it wasn't in place, indeed by all accounts from even the lefty media, the policing was extremely low key up to that point.

Once violence has broken out, its more than reasonable and proportionate to contain a crowd, which contains the violent minority mixed in with other, innocent protesters to ensure that the violence does not spread to other locations, and until you can ensure that the violent minority are either separated from the innocent ones, or are no longer going to cause any damage - "you're not going anywhere until the naughty ones calm down"

clearly the correct answer, would be for the peaceful innocent protesters to distance themselves from any outbreaks of violence, and give up those who damaged their cause by breaking the law.

Elfin, did your teacher at school, when you went, ever keep the class behind because they were misbehaving? I suppose you thought it was reasonable to start smashing chairs and stuff because 'he broke my humin rights, innit' 🙄

IIRC there was no kettling this weekend.

Maybe the Police couldn't be bothered to isolate the troublemakers as they are also public sector workers and are working to rule.

you don't have sole user licence for pedantry

I think the STW collective should really think about clubbing together for a group licence. Massive savings to be made.

Lifer; I was just curious as to why you were occupying F&M.

On a slightly different note, I think the protestors are all a bit daft actually. If you want to bring down a system everyone knows you do it quietly and from within. Not by smashing random shop windows and screaming at random public sector workers. ElfinSafety likes to brag about using reasonable force against what he deems as illegal detention by police, but unfortunately what is reasonable force can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder, i.e how that person perceives the threat etc. People like Elfin are purely opposite numbers to the police that he so thoroughly dislikes, and as such are equally distasteful.

duckman - Member
Lifer; I was just curious as to why you were occupying F&M.

I wasn't. Not my blog.

Apparently it was targeted because it's owned by a company that uses charitable status as a tax avoidance tool.

Lifer, did you get lasagne too?
I likes lasagne.

duckman - Member
Lifer; I was just curious as to why you were occupying F&M.

To scare the cr@p out of the tourists in there? (Tourists who generate a massive amount of tax revenue when they visit the UK)
To scare the cr@p out of the staff who work there? (Staff who are, obviously all evil toryscum innit? Not one of them is just an oridinary bod earning a crust and, oh yes, paying their taxes)
To have a go at their parents? Seeing as most of the protesters are almost certainly from comfortable middle class backgrounds.
Etc. etc. etc.

Pathetic little children ruined the day for all those who chose to protest. I disagree with the main protest, as it happens, as I think we have little choice but to make cuts, but I would always defend the right of peaceful protest for those who chose to do it.

Apparently it was targeted because it's owned by a company that uses charitable status as a tax avoidance tool.

Did they go and smash up the Guardian as well then?

Sorry Lifer,assumed it was you. I would be inclined to suggest it was a target because of its traditional user,as was the Ritz.Historically the first place the mob trashed was where the upper classes spent their money and leisure time.(Then the mayors house,hint hint Londoners)Not really what the protests were supposed to be about mind.

As ever, the Mash.....

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/britain-prefers-anarchists-to-miliband-201103283664/ ]BURNING Fortnum and Mason to the ground is a more credible alternative to the budget cuts than Ed Miliband, a survey has found.

[/url]

Refering to the OP: What is morally wrong is anarchists hijacking every flaming protest nowadays which is effectively creating a situation whereby the right to protest for the ordinary man in the street is becoming severely eroded.

I disagree with the main protest, as it happens, as I think we have little choice but to make cuts,

Yeah but in fairness Flashy, that's cos you have almost no real understanding of how those cuts will affect real people, because you yourself will be relatively unaffected. So if it don't affect you, then you're not really bothered, are you? Come down to where I live, and I will show you the reality of the effects of such cuts. I guarantee you will change your mind.

On a slightly different note, I think the protestors are all a bit daft actually. If you want to bring down a system everyone knows you do it quietly and from within. Not by smashing random shop windows and screaming at random public sector workers. ElfinSafety likes to brag about using reasonable force against what he deems as illegal detention by police, but unfortunately what is reasonable force can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder, i.e how that person perceives the threat etc. People like Elfin are purely opposite numbers to the police that he so thoroughly dislikes, and as such are equally distasteful.

As has bin established, if you'd bin paying attention, it was a tiny minority of people who caused any trouble.

Not by smashing random shop windows and screaming at random [b]public sector workers[/b].

Do you actually know what you're on about? 😕

People like Elfin

You're just being daft now. There's no-one like me.... 😀

Seeing as most of the protesters are almost certainly from comfortable middle class backgrounds.

Oh are they now? And how d'you know this Flashy? Were you there? No, you weren't, were you? Just making massive assumptions as usual. Sorry, you seem a decent enough feller most of the time, but you do come across as very socially naive and blinkered, it has to be said.

Fred leading the Suffolk Hunt on day of demo

😆

Tally ho!

What is morally wrong is anarchists hijacking every flaming protest nowadays which is effectively creating a situation whereby the right to protest for the ordinary man in the street is becoming severely eroded.

Well said, sir, well said.

I'd agree with that too. However, it seems very often that an entirely peaceful protest doesn't grab the headlines and public imagination as much as a bit of aggro.

I mean, would we be discussing things at such length, if there [i]hadn't[/i] bin any trouble? I doubt it.

If you want to bring down a system everyone knows you do it quietly and from within. Not by smashing random shop windows and screaming at random public sector workers.

It seemed pretty clear to me that there were two fairly distinct groups of people, those protesting sensibly and those lobbing bricks. Random passers by such as myself could easily be occupying the same space as either group. Are you telling me that it's acceptable for a heavily pregnant woman to be detained for walking along the street Zulu?

Oh, I'd like to point out to Yossarian that although these thugs might like to think they're attacking the state, when it's represented in the form of human beings those people can end up in hospital. Not nice.

From UK Uncut:

"We weren't just going to march from A to B and be ignored, people are prepared to take civil disobedientt action because they are angry at the unfairness of these cuts. Fortnum & Mason is a symbol of wealth and greed. It is where the Royal Family and the super-rich do their weekly shop and a picnic hamper costs £25,000. This sits in stark contrast to everyone else who is struggling to make ends meet, fill in their tax returns and benefits forms, and face huge student debts, unemployment and the closure or dismatling of their local services that we need and depend on such as the NHS, libraries and leisure centres.

"We are not all in this together - the government, big business such as ABF, banking sector and the wealthy who shop here are in it together and are choosing to make everyone else pay the price for the banks greed and wreckless gambling. The government is making a political choice to turn a blind eye to the tax dodging of big business and reward the banks' mistakes with the bail out and bonuses and instead cut child, housing and disability benefits as well as decimating the Welfare State.

"Civil disobedience has a long tradition of driving forward progressive change and we are here to send a powerful message that we are angry at the government's choice to protect the rich and punish the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. It's society that's too big to fail, not the broken banking sector. There is an alternative through clamping down on tax avoidance and making the banks pay for their crisis, the government is just choosing to ignore it and that is not fair or right."

[url] http://ukuncut.org.uk/blog/press-release-uk-uncut-occupy-tax-dodgers-fortnum-and-mason [/url]

@CaptainFlashheart - for many it's the speed and targets of the cuts that are the problem. Look at the OBR figures for household debt.

Pre Emergency Budget:

[img] [/img]

Post Emergency Budget:

[img] [/img]

Pre 2011 Budget:

[img] [/img]

From [url] http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-obr-forecast-nobody-wants-you-to-see/ [/url]

I mean, would we be discussing things at such length, if there hadn't bin any trouble? I doubt it.

Indeed, Elf, but we're not discussing the issue behind the [i]real[/i] demo at all, are we? The only discussion anywhere is about the idiots ruining that genuine demonstration.

Berm Bandit - Member
Refering to the OP: What is morally wrong is anarchists hijacking every flaming protest nowadays which is effectively creating a situation whereby the right to protest for the ordinary man in the street is becoming severely eroded.

Gory makes story

The 'violence' is disproportionately represented in the media because it's more interesting than "250,000 people marched in peaceful solidarity". One example that springs to mind is the massive protest in Ireland against the shootings/attacks on Police stations recently, this was bumped by endless analysis of the German school shooting.

I would be inclined to suggest it was a target because of its traditional user,as was the Ritz

I'm pretty sure that those who targeted the Ritz were quite different to those who targeted F&M.

The Ritz was targeted by the usual temporary revolutionaries who are rebelling against the comfortable middle-class upbringing which mummy and daddy has provided them with, whilst F&M was targeted by UK Uncut.

I have a lot of time for UK Uncut. Their aim is not to trash anything, but to highlight staggering hypocrisy and double standards which are applied whereby those who did not create the crises, are forced to pay for it, whilst those who did, are allowed the get away scot-free.

The poor did not cause the global credit crunch/recession, it was the rich and powerful who did that, and yet they are expected, as usual, to carry the can. UK Uncut has my full support in exposing this nasty government's double-standards.

Well actually this thread was originally about the morality of kettling. It's now moved on to other matters.

This tax avoidance thing;

I know a feller who works for a company his dad set up, which is actually a registered charity. Now, I'm not sure how this all works, but this bloke don't take a salary, he takes out 'loans' from the charity's account, which are indefinite and have no interest payable. Somehow, don't ask me how, this means he doesn't have to pay any income tax whatsoever. None. Yet he enjoys free health care, education for his kids, etc etc.

I enquired, somewhat incredulously, as to how this is possible, or even legal. He responded with 'oh, it's quite common, and loads of people do it'. 😯 completely 'legal', too apparently.

He enjoys several foreign holidays a year, works far less hours than most, and enjoys a comfortable lifestyle. His house is registered as a charity asset, so that has some financial benefits too somehow.

Moral?

Meanwhile, some poor sods fiddling a bit of benefit to eak out their meagre incomes get labelled as scum cheats, fraudsters, and treated as criminals.

Funny old world, in't it?

Yup, entirely legal.

As an American billionaire once famously said, "only the little people pay taxes"

The poor did not cause the global credit crunch/recession, it was the rich and powerful who did that

by lending money to the poor wasnt it, perhaps they should have persevered with the robbing via rent, rather than allowing the poor to default on mortgages.......
then by backing the little man, they gambled themselves into oblivion.

still i blame the banks and the tories, mostly thatcher.

by lending money to the poor wasnt it

Mostly by lending money to poor Americans who were desperate for a home to buy overinflated rubbishy properties, I believe.

I very much doubt that you will find anyone who genuinely doesn't understand and accept the need for a period of austerity and prudence. However, the issue is not about that, its about fairness. The Crisis was not created by the public sector, nor by those who are poorest in our society. I have no doubt they both would expect to take a fair share of the burden, but you are talking about a government that does things like deem it reasonable to bring in a tax avoiding lizard like Phillip Greene to pontificate to the rest of us about biting the bullet. Thats what gets up peoples backs and makes them demonstrate. Not the cuts per se.

In all fairness Ernie, she was Polish not American. 😀

If you want to bring down a system everyone knows you do it quietly and from within.

LOL!

In all fairness Ernie, she was Polish not American.

Well I guess I must have been misled by the fact that she was born in New York.

But thanks for pointing that out anyway 8)

OK, Half American.

As a half-American billionaire once famously said, "only the little people pay taxes"

You only have to consider who the people that end up getting kettled are to realise that the police deserve our full support over kettling.

Very good Ernest 🙂

You only have to consider who the people that end up getting kettled are to realise that the police deserve our full support over kettling.

What a packet of poo. So, if you don't agree with a protest then the police should be able to use unreasonable force and violence against protestors? That's not very democratic, is it?

Another who's never bin to a demo where kettling has bin employed... 🙄

Well whether or not you agree/have the faintest idea what you are talking about/disagree/are scared the cuts are going ahead. So will the protests and so will the direct actions, both violent and passive.

I like the fact that a generation of young people are becoming politicised by this, I like it that they are getting off their arses and thinking for themselves, hell I even like the fact they're prepared to break a few windows (it's only glass). Is this Cameron's big society in action? I suspect it is, but not in any form that a Tory could understand.

Why are WE paying for the failures of a political system built on corporate greed? I'm still a bit unsure on that, could someone explain?

Elfinsafety - Member
What a packet of poo. So, if you don't agree with a protest then the police should be able to use unreasonable force and violence against protestors?

Yeah, pretty much.

Anything that upsets professionally working class (as opposed to working class professionals) ultra-bores and cosseted middle class faux-anarchists is just fine by me.

It's not as if they're keeping you from getting to work, is it?

😉

You only have to consider who the people that end up getting kettled are to realise that the police deserve our full support over kettling.

If it was that simple, kettling wouldn't be so controversial, would it?

"Not by smashing random shop windows and screaming at random public sector workers.

Do you actually know what you're on about?"

Certain people conveniently forget that police are public sector workers too. They are facing pay freezes/cuts and increase in pensions payments for less for longer. Can they go on a mass smash and grab through London?

Mr ElfinSafety - I'm intrigued:

[i]"I know a feller who works for a company his dad set up, which is actually a registered charity. Now, I'm not sure how this all works, but this bloke don't take a salary, he takes out 'loans' from the charity's account, which are indefinite and have no interest payable. Somehow, don't ask me how, this means he doesn't have to pay any income tax whatsoever. None. Yet he enjoys free health care, education for his kids, etc etc. "[/i]

Charity accounts are readily accessible, and all charities are regulated by The Charity Commission, so it should be pretty easy to confirm the relevant facts in your post.

If you're willing to name the Charity you've referred to we can then look at the facts for ourselves.

Perhaps you can also confirm given your apparent strength of feeling whether you've contacted the Charity Commission yourself to tell them your concerns about the way the charity is being managed and whether it's really trying to meet its charitable aims?

I avoid tax, I have ISA's.

Don't know about the charity thing, but most /many will have been fed some BS at some stage that they later reflect on and which then causes to re-think how they view things.

I worked for a small, succesful company. Started by a small pool of prefessionals, some of whom were shareholding directors, some of whom were dedicated, motivated staff who worked equally as hard in the hope of building a bigger, more succesful business.

During the early tears "we are all in this together" - striving to make the business a success. Opportunities for growth and personal promotion and betterment... future directorships dangled etc.

A few years in and grown by 10x and it's more them and us. Ladder is being pulled up now. Those that worked hard to grow the business are now getitng fobbed off - they've developed hugely as practising professionals and now want the pay and recognition. Pushing at pay reveiws for a fair deal in an increasingly competitive labour market, one answer that comes back is that we only pay ourselves "x", therefore you have to be "x"-1...

Of course, find out later that "x" is somewhere close to the tax threshold, as advised by the acountants. A tax efficient figure, which also effectively acts as a cap to the rest of the team. All the while the hypocrites who spin you that line are paying themselves almost as much again in shares from the holding company...

soulwood - Member

On a slightly different note, I think the protestors are all a bit daft actually. If you want to bring down a system everyone knows you do it quietly and from within. Not by smashing random shop windows and screaming at random public sector workers.

Just to state the bleedin obvious but "the protestors" don't act as a block, what proportion of the total crowd were smashing shope windows do you reckon?

Berm Bandit - Member

Refering to the OP: What is morally wrong is anarchists hijacking every flaming protest nowadays which is effectively creating a situation whereby the right to protest for the ordinary man in the street is becoming severely eroded.

What would be morally wrong here, would be eroding the right of the ordinary man to protest because of the actions of another group.

Of course, find out later that "x" is somewhere close to the tax threshold, as advised by the acountants. A tax efficient figure, which also effectively acts as a cap to the rest of the team. All the while the hypocrites who spin you that line are paying themselves almost as much again in shares from the holding company...

That sucks but not much you can do. Get another job ?

That sucks but not much you can do. Get another job ?

Left 10 years ago - doing similar job for more thsan double the salary. That partly reflects additional experience, responsibility and expertise, of course, but wouldn't have progressed if I had stayed

Pretty much all of us who were in from / close to the start bailed as we realised that all the promises were BS.

Quite instructive in the ways of capitlaism - even in a small firm setting. Ironically, I'm not "anti-capitalist" per-se. Just can't stand for hypocrisy, double dealing and treating people badly. Someone in my current firm said recently - "we respect the person, not the position". I quite like that.

Thanks Fred; edit appreciated 😀 Good point by Northwind;when is tipping point reached,when ordinary people decide that the potential for being caught up in any violence outweighs their desire to march and protest?

Here's the latest footage of many of those arrested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/28/cuts-protest-uk-uncut-fortnum

SCUM!!!!

Oh dear. That bit of video is quite damning, isn't it? I think calling the police 'scum' is maybe a tad strong, but hey ho.

So, an ostensibly peaceful demonstration, albeit one involving trespass, is dealt with using quite a disproportionate amount of force. Those people certainly weren't acting aggressively, were they?

And of all those arrested, 138 were in F+M. So mostly simply aggravated trespass then. Hardly major crime really, is it? Yer average Friday night town centre will be a fair bit livelier.

All blown up out of all proportion. Cheeze... 🙄

It was a pretty scummy thing to do though!

By my reckoning ~70% of total arrests were people from F&M? Then again "60 arrests" makes it sound like a tiny minority of trouble makers but get it into the hundreds and it sounds more menacing...[/tinfoil hat]

I'd like to give them an opportunity to respond, to see if they can come up with any justification for that at all. But I'd be surprised.

(before anyone says "You only saw the edited video, they could have been causing trouble after they left the store"- yes they could but you can hear the charges and one is aggravated trespass, so he's not being arrested for some off-camera offence)

That footage is deeply depressing rightplacerighttime. It's certainly a long time since I've seen something which undermines my faith in the police quite as much as that. My trust in the police had slowly built over a number of years, I'm afraid that now it's almost back to square one - I had really thought that the police had improved a lot in recent years after some spectacular failings.

What makes it so sinister is the calm and devious manner which the officers deliberately lie and abuse the trust which the protesters reluctantly put on them. Abuse of trust by those in position of responsibility is particularly repugnant. Those young protesters will remember that for the rest of their lives - they will have considerably less trust in the police from now on.

Although I'm sure it won't, I hope it doesn't put UK Uncut off from carrying on with their protests, they're a good bunch who get up off their arses and try to make a difference. They combine their peaceful protests with entertainment and comic effect, dressing up and adding an amusing angle to their message to shoppers, all terribly middle-class college student type stuff, but immeasurably more acceptable and effective than the actions of those other middle-class tossers the Black Bloc and their mindless rampaging.

I also hope that as result of that footage disciplinary action is taken, those coppers responsible should lose their jobs - I don't want my taxes to the Met be used to employ thoroughly dishonest individuals......but I don't suppose for a moment that it will.

And yes, I'm accepting all that evidence in the video on face value before any inquiry has been carried out. As far as I'm concerned it is immeasurably more reliable than anything I might read in the newspapers. People are happy to accept what they read in the papers or see on the TV news as being true without a public enquiry, I'm happy to accept the evidence in a video which I have no reason to believe is fake.

Why are WE paying for the failures of a political system built on corporate greed? I'm still a bit unsure on that, could someone explain?

Reference the above, do you see the political system as being democracy, or do you mean the particular form of democracy we have? In general I struggle to see democracy as being based on corporate greed but figure I'm missing something in what you've written.

Regardless, how has the political system failed? Because government spending is set to rise by less than it otherwise might have done?

Actually, what I find really depressing (call me cynical) is that probably the woman Chief Inspector may well have been acting in good faith, and may well have been sent in to be the acceptable face of the police in F&M, but that someone higher up the tree was probably using her in the same way that they were using the protestors to try to engineer the story. Bet she's not pleased with the way she looks on the video either.

It's the same cynicism that the police displayed when they left that empty van in the middle of the street just asking for it to be smashed up at the tuition fees demo.

OTOH the cop who gets filmed just after the protestors ask why they are being held looks unfortunately like the steriotypical [url=

Savage[/url]

the woman Chief Inspector may well have been acting in good faith

Yes that's quite possible. And I don't blame the officers carrying out the arrests. But someone in authority clearly decided to deliberately lie, misinform, mislead, and abuse trust.

And if this from the link is true it really doesn't sound good :

[i]People in the crowd told a second female officer: 'You've lied to us. You said we could leave and now you're arresting everyone.' She replied: 'Yes, you're free to leave – to the police station. You're going to be arrested.'"[/i]

I can handle a copper losing it and beating the crap out of an innocent protester - some coppers are arseholes and that won't affect my overall opinion of the police. But for a senior officer(s) to be deliberately and calculatingly dishonest, is seriously sinister imo.