[Closed] Is Kettling Morally Wrong?

Another point of his and one I would imagine shared by a lot of the police."I have never seen many working class people with such nice sports jackets."

Do you have to get means tested before you can protest?

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fears-of-crackdown-on-right-to-protest-in-wake-of-anticuts-violence-2255731.html ]Fears of crackdown on right to protest[/url]

I have never seen many working class people with such nice sports jackets."

Not sur eit is Goodwin as using that poem is mor elike syaing for the triumoh of evil all that is neccessary is that good people do nothing or perhaps saying you should not ignore opppression of people just because you are not a memebr of that group. I am not sure anything was compared to the Nazis directly.

Interesting thread. Remarkably civilized debate too which is suprising for here of late.

That said, I'm waiting for Fred to post details of that tax-dodge charity so we can all go and do some STW investigations! (and if it's right, so that I can set up the ME Fund charity 😉 )

Wonder how many of the hoorays in F&M will end up shopping there in 20 years time (perhaps Mater and Pater do already). And that beastly policelady lying to them when she seemed such a nice sort. Perhaps Daddy will have a word with the Commisioner at the next local lodge meeting.

Wow, condescending much? Were you the one doing the means testing?

duckman,

Have you actually watched the video in the link I posted a couple of posts back?

Yup,watched you clip and forwarded the link to a mate as well(as I stated.) One thing,the clip does not show any of the initial occupation of the shop,just the demonstrators pointing out the people happily shopping after they state they had helped to clean up.Clean up what? Was there perhaps damage caused to other peoples property during the initial occupation? Funny how quiet the shop is for that time of day as well.

For me,the clip is at best incomplete and at worse misleading.Yes it shows a fine example of the police blatantly fibbing,but we only get to see 4 mins of what I am sure was a much longer incident.

Junkyard;the irony is members of the upper/middle classes(not saying they all were) making life difficult for the W/C shop workers by occupying a shop that their social group are traditionally the supporters of.

Clean up what? Was there perhaps damage caused to other peoples property during the initial occupation?

No criminal damage charges for the UK Uncut protesters suggests otherwise. Why this obsession with what *supposed* class people are? It doesn't matter.

The people coming relatively quietly out of that shop account for 138 of the 149 arrests made on the day.

In an account I read somewhere one of the F&M protestors did mention that a box of chocolates got knocked off a shelf but that they picked them up - maybe that was the "clean up"? I'm pretty certain that the "clean up" didn't refer to thrown paint, smashed windows etc like those occurring elsewhere.

Come on, stop being an apologist. Yet again the police took disproportionate action against the wrong group of people.

BTW duckman, in what way do you think the video is misleading?

Yet again the police took disproportionate action against the wrong group of people

My best mate is of the same rank,he thinks .........

Now this is getting really depressing. So you are suggesting that this incident isn't a one-off. Lying and dishonesty is widespread throughout the senior police ranks, and it is seen as an acceptable tool to achieve your aims.

I had quite genuinely thought that the police had moved light years away from the the attitudes of the 1970s, when lying and dishonesty was wildly seen as perfectly acceptable tools to achieve your aims.......and used with such devastating against people such as the Guildford Four. I had really thought that the miscarriages of justice which were so typical of previous decades, could never be repeated in today's police forces.

If your best mate thinks it is perfectly acceptable for senior police officers like himself to lie as long as it secures a conviction, and he can't see a problem with that, where does he draw the line ? And who decides where the line is drawn - him alone ? Or is there a "rule book" which details what exactly are acceptable lies by the police ?

And if in this incident it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie because it helps to secure convictions with the minimum fuss, then presumable when presented with not quite enough evidence to secure the conviction of someone they "know" to be guilty, then there's nothing wrong with a little bit of lying to provide more "evidence" ? Maybe senior officers lying to the Independent Police Complaints Commission is OK too - if it gets them out of a sticky situation ? ........why wouldn't it be ?

I didn't need your senior police officer best mate to explain to me why the police lied duckman - it's pretty ****ing obvious why they did. I needed him to tell me that it was totally unacceptable.

I expect zero tolerance of lying within the police - specially amongst the higher ranks. And I have no doubt that the vast majority of the people they are there to serve expect no less either.

Edit for Ernie;Ernie;Didn't mention conviction,did I? I think the cctv in the shop will arrange that,if required.You are right,not much cleaning up done,the thrown paint was still on the front of the building as the protestors were lifted.Of course the police had time to give them a wee ticking off and send them on their way,didn't they? Give the police the chance to get 150ish demonstraters off the streets,they will take it.I would be amazed to see any of those charged go to court.Their protests are a flawed way of highlighting tax-avoidance IMO,(I don't know what the best way is by-the-way.)
An apologist for what exactly? The police action? No chance,I dislike them as a group,even more than that stupid woman on one of the other videos dancing to the guy playing the bagpipes in F&M.Does that not mean what you are saying is that people should be allowed to break the law with impunity,and as long as they have a cause it is okay?
The video you posted shows the protesters pointing out how tidy the place was but not the numbers who forced their way in at first. And have you seen the pics of what was going on outside the shop during the occupation,I would suggest a LOT more people were meant to be inside.

Best banner - in the middle of the Trafalgar Square kettle - "Careful Now"...

Which bit was disproportionate? The arresting or the kettling?

Both.

I'm talking specifically about the UK UNcut protestors shown in the video that I refer to above.

It was the end of the day.

No damage done.

Protestors were completely peaceful (as seen in the video as regular shoppers went about their business unworried nearby).

The protestors had agreed to leave (in fact were cooperqting with police by staying in the store after they had wanted to leave!) and were heard asking if they would be allowed to go to the nearest tube (Greenpark I think) nearby.

They were well ordered as they came out and were going where they had been asked to go.

Then outside they (138 of them!) were stopped held and then pulled away individually and taken off to the cells.

It was absolutely obvious that they were in no way of the same sort of threat as the many violent hooded types seen causing trouble elsewhere more or less with impunity.

The police chose a soft target and IMO decided to teach them a lesson.

It will be interesting to see whether or not any of them actually go to court. My bet is that some may accept a caution, but I hope not because actually I think the police will look like idiots in the light of video and other evidence and they will all walk.

thrown paint was still on the front of the building as the protestors were lifted

How did they throw the paint on the outside from inside?

Give the police the chance to get 150ish demonstraters off the streets,they will take it.

They weren't on the street either!

You are completely misreading this. Those UK Uncut types inside were not the ones causing trouble out on the street. But they were the ones the police chose to arrest.

Did you not hear the female Chief Inspector explaining to them (whilst still inside) that she didn't want them to go outside because there was a disturbance [b]outside?[/b]

There was no damage inside. It would have been easy for the protestors inside to run amuck but they weren't were they? They were just taking up space.

My point really is that in the midst of some much more significant disorder, the police decided to waste their time (and our money) picking on a soft target instead of doing their real jobs.

V poor performance.

Appluads ernie

And that beastly policelady lying to them when she seemed such a nice sort

Does that not mean what you are saying is that people should be allowed to break the law with impunity,and as long as they have a cause it is okay?

You seem to think that the police should be allowed to lie with impunity.

And I'm not sure how illegal it is to walk into a shop you have a grievance with to make a point........is it illegal ? It would make making a complaint rather difficult would it not ?

The protesters believe that Fortnum & Mason owes them money through unpaid taxes :

[url= http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog/blog-why-we-sat-in-fortnum--mason ]Fortnum & Mason Tax Scam[/url]

I believe the law states you can break the law in the public interest - defence used by the protestors on nuclear power stations iirc

And [url= http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/29/why-tax-avoidance-is-among-the-biggest-issues-of-our-generation/ ]why tax avoidance is among the biggest issues of our generation[/url]

There is much more to say on the topic but I have limited space. The Tax Justice Network* estimated in 2005 that over $11 trillion is stashed away in havens. That is bigger than the size of the world’s largest economy: the United States.

*Awesome

[s]Evening[/s] Morning all! 😀

Another point of his and one I would imagine shared by a lot of the police."I have never seen many working class people with such nice sports jackets."

So, your mate what is a police inspector has made some massive assumptions as to the character of all those protestors, based on the fashion choices of a few? And you suggest that a lot of coppers would also make instant judgements of individuals based on very little actual information?

Is your mate really in the right job?

I reckon the police had orders from Up On High to make significant arrests if there was any trouble at all, and saw the F+M lot as an opportunity to bag a load of 'villains' in one go. Trouble is, that most of those charges will simply warrant a caution in many cases, I'd imagine, and even if folk are prosecuted, it's hardly a major crime, like, say, for instance, murdering innocent people in Tube stations...

Far from being the wonderful, perfect institution some may see the police as, they are all part of a fairly flawed, far less than perfect, mis-managed and at times corrupt organisation in need of more effective resources, better training and education for their members, and far more public accountability.

A necessary evil, no more no less.

They will knock seven bells of poo out of them as they always do. Brixton/Toxtieth/Miners strike/Poll tax riots.

You just enjoy revelling in people whose views you don't agree with getting a hiding from uniformed thugs. Probbly satisfies some deep insecurity within you, a way of offsetting your own impotence.

In Brixton, the police took a battering. As they did in Toxteth. At the miners strike, they had to draft in a bunch of hired thugs with no numbers (Army?). And the Poll Tax Riots was a real police success, wasn't it?

In fact, it seems whenever the police do come up against a really tough mob, they don't respond the same way as against a 'bunch of upper-middle class types': Manchester town centre a couple of years ago; hundreds of football hooligans rampaging through the streets, causing untold damage (an event which any fool could've seen coming, let's be honest). Police din't seem so tough then, did they?

Couple of points,

It would appear the first rule is to get the demonstrators out of the shop without causing any damage,in that case a pretty successful police action

Am I missing something here? They could've done that quite easily by getting out of the way and going "off you go then, lads." Granted, we see a one-sided view in the video footage, but they don't strike me as hellraisers.

A few people have mentioned the F&M protesters being 'kettled' (both here and on the video) - either this simply isn't true or the definition of kettling is somewhat broader than I'd previously believed.

Apparently they're being charged with trespass. How does one trespass [i]in a publicly accessible shop?[/i]

I reckon the police had orders from Up On High to make significant arrests if there was any trouble at all, and saw the F+M lot as an opportunity to bag a load of 'villains' in one go.

That is, of course, pure speculation.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.

Apparently they're being charged with trespass. How does one trespass in a publicly accessible shop?

Once you have been asked to leave a publicly accessable but privately owned premises (and they probably were asked by the manager, one would have thought) then you are then trespassing if you refuse to go. The implied permission to enter the premises has been revoked (and by implied permission I mean that it is widely accepted that people are expected and allowed to enter shops etc, as opposed to express permission such as you opening your front door to a visitor).

So now you have a trespass, and the circumstances would likely raise this from the civil matter of 'normal' trespass to the criminal offence of aggravated trespass, if they were hindering staff or customers and so on. Any charges from the police would be for agg trespass, normal trespass is a civil matter.

Gotcha. Thanks.

You just enjoy revelling in people whose views you don't agree with getting a hiding from uniformed thugs. Probbly satisfies some deep insecurity within you, a way of offsetting your own impotence.

Feel free to post any pithy or personal remark you like Fred.At the end of the day,I think that they should not have entered the building if they were not willing to face any consequences.I would give you holding the people as an adequate measure,(keeping them from going somewhere else and doing the same thing)and the police lied to them.I don't think charges were propotionate,or will ever see court,but why did they enter if they were not willing to face whatever happened?

Aww did I upset you Fred?

Not at all; you've upset yourself. 😀

Did any of the F&M protesters get a hiding? Not on the video posted by RPRT.

Did you actually watch the video ? Right to the end? to the part where the police are forcibly prising the protesters apart and pining them to the ground whilst arresting them?

The police have made a rod for their own backs off the back of this protest.

Elfin

"At the miners strike, they had to draft in a bunch of hired thugs with no numbers (Army?)."

If your were old enough to have been there you would know that they imported the MET (to wave rolls of cash) up here to do the dirty work. It underminds your arguments when write conspiracy rubbish. You'll be telling us next that you believe aliens shot John Lennon.

Please keep the thread going though it's pretty impressive so far. Oh and Phillip Green for President.

The worst I saw was the guy being dragged off by two coppers,legs dragging.You also had the knocked over photographer snapping away as he falls.Depends what you term as a hiding;for me it would be the police leathering the crap out of somebody on the ground with sticks. You can see 10 times worse outside any nightclub on a Sat.*

* I come from Dundee.

I'm not sure comparing the actions of the police to those of some nightclub patrons in Dundee helps justify the actions of either party.

duckman - Member

As I said before I like the irony of people who set off on a course of breaking the law BUT seem to think there should be no consequence

With the amount of interest you've shown on subject duckman, I would have thought that by now you had got a grip of the facts.

UK Uncut does not "set off on a course of breaking the law". Their protests are both peaceful and lawful.

thegreatape has already pointed out that entering publicly accessible but privately owned premises is lawful, and only ceases to be so when asked to leave by the management.

I see no evidence that they failed to comply with the law or that it was not their intention to do so. There is however considerable evidence that the police prohibited them from leaving the shop.

"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."

Certainly worked a treat in Egypt ...

I see no evidence that they failed to comply with the law or that it was not their intention to do so. There is however considerable evidence that the police prohibited them from leaving the shop.

And the Police know that how? Seems to me they had a legitimate street protest of some 1/4 of a million people to deal with alongside two hijack protests one of which was extremely violent, the other less so. So you've got an extremely stretched resource having to deal with serious riot conditions and you seem to expect them to treat everyone breaking the law on the day with a cup of tea and a nice chat over a biscuit to ascertain whether they are going to torch the place or not. Personally whenever this stuff goes off I thank the Lord we live where we do and have the policing we now have.

Serious riot conditions? Did you watch the video? There was more chance of a sudden outbreak of Jammie Dodgers.

Were the dudes on the balcony of F&M from Uk-uncut or just hangers on ? (the ones who had sprayed grafitti/obscene slogans on the shopfront)

"At the miners strike, they had to draft in a bunch of hired thugs with no numbers (Army?)."

I'm pretty certain I remember a family friend who was one of the armed forces personnel drafted in..

I might be wrong though.. got a mind like a seive

HTH

There was more chance of a sudden outbreak of Jammie Dodgers.

Not in the Deli, my dear old thing! They'd never have such base confections in there! 😉

There was more chance of a sudden outbreak of Jammie Dodgers.

Read the post you are responding to, try to comprehend it, then write your response before hitting send is generally sound advice in my experience.

thegreatape has already pointed out that entering publicly accessible but privately owned premises is lawful, and only ceases to be so when asked to leave by the management.

I see no evidence that they failed to comply with the law or that it was not their intention to do so. There is however considerable evidence that the police prohibited them from leaving the shop.

REALLY? There is plenty footage of them entering and taking over the building,unlikely something the management of the shop would have been in support of,which then constitutes trespass.

Facts Ernie,so subjective are they not? (depending on your argument)

Ernie's facts;Group out for a stroll,get collective desire for a posh picnic hamper, get kettled within the shop,lied to,wrongfully arrested then beaten by plod.Sheesh,how awful.

Quite entertaining. But watching lots of ill-informed, knee jerk ranting always is. Trouble is, most people are incapable of listening to the other side of a story. Much easier to interpret events according to your own ideology or particular political leaning. Not sure why so many people enjoy getting angry about so many things, based on so little information? Must be exhausting.

Read the post you are responding to, try to comprehend it, then write your response before hitting send is generally sound advice in my experience.

he did he said you were talking crap , he has a point.

As above read etc

yunki - Member

"At the miners strike, they had to draft in a bunch of hired thugs with no numbers (Army?)."

I'm pretty certain I remember a family friend who was one of the armed forces personnel drafted in..
I might be wrong though.. got a mind like a seive
HTH

Well it's all getting a bit vague for me now to be honest but some of the shit I see written about the period by wannabee's and history rewriters (left and right) does get on my tits. They were tough times for many but the MET who loved all the overtime.

Seems to me they had a legitimate street protest of some 1/4 of a million people to deal with alongside two hijack protests one of which was extremely violent, the other less so. So you've got an extremely stretched resource having to deal with serious riot conditions

Someone else who doesn't know what he's talking about.

First of all the police did not to steward the march or rally on Saturday, that was all done by the TUC and in agreement with the Met. An unprecedented situation for a march in central London in my experience. I have certainly never seen a march with so lightly policed before.

The strategy worked perfectly, then were no incidents or trouble on either the march or the rally.

Nevertheless the police had drafted over 4,500 officers in case they were needed.

There were however incidents which were not associated with the march that required a police presence. The police put the numbers involved in these incidents at about 500, of which over 200 were arrested.

Bearing in mind that the police had at their disposal over 4,500 officers which up until that point had not been needed, to deal with 500 individuals, you can hardly talk about [i]"an extremely stretched resource"[/i] ffs.

And since you are obviously clueless, let me explain about the tactics of the Black Bloc. The are the semi-intellectual equivalent of football hooligans. They use these events to satisfy their testosterone-fuelled urges for excitement and adrenaline kicks.

So whilst they may be at these events they are not part of them. On Saturday they exploited both the TUC march and the UK Uncut protests. They organise, to a degree, through Globalise Resistance. They had what they described as "unofficial" feeder marches :

[url= http://www.resist.org.uk/uk/anti-cuts/march-for-the-alternative/ ]Globalise Resistance "unofficial" feeder marches[/url]

So you see they don't even describe themselves as being part of the "official" march.

You'll also note in the link that they had fully planned in advance to occupy Trafalgar Square at the end of the day. The Met would have seen their website before the event and would have known of their plans - and would have been prepared for them with their extremely [i]"unstretched"[/i] resources.

UK Uncut are as different to the Black Bloc as the Black Bloc is to the TUC. The Black Bloc exploits both the TUC and UK Uncut for its own personal needs.

For as long as I can remember the "anarchists" have turned up at demos to cause trouble (although I never saw them at Wapping where there was real bother) They appear to have become more violent recently because, I suspect, they have been inspired by what they have seen happening in other countries on their tellies.

Despite their claim and their compulsory red and black flags, they are not anarchists. They are just middle-class tossers who are clueless about politics and want to play at being revolutionaries at the week-end. One thing I noticed about them on Saturday is how they are all like Peter Pan.......they never get any older. So despite me having aged since my first demo, they have all remained exactly the same age.

They are in fact, what I describe as "transient revolutionaries".......when they eventually the finish their degrees many will land themselves nice well paid jobs and will become model Tory voters. A bit like the chairman of the Tory Party Eric Pickles :

[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6926960.ece ]Eric Pickles tells of communist past as Eric the Red[/url]