This epaulette business.....When they're wearing public order overalls, they don't have numbered epaulettes on the shoulder like they normally would. The white ones show he is a sergeant, red ones identify an inspector, and I think it's blue for really important people but you rarely see them. No one wears numbers there. I don't know why that is, but they don't. So when you see a policeman in public order overalls without numbers on his shoulder that's because they were never there in the first place, not because he's removed them. Different forces display numbers differently with public order kit, I have seen some with it one the front of their body armour, some with big stickers on the back of their helmets. Not all the police officers at the G20 protests were in public order kit so that is why you can see plenty with the normal numbered epaulettes and normal hats as well as the 'riot' police.
I have a set of police public order overalls (given to me via a few people) and it has Velcro patches where all the identification can be stuck on or removed if required. Removing or covering identification numbers in public order situations is nothing new.
sdShe new what she was doing, as for the slap, it was a controled responce I though, not too hard to leave dammage, but with enough force to to warn any normal person to BACK OFF.
What, back off or I'll attack you with a baton? I thought the police had a set of rules they were supposed to adhere to which were not dissimilar to the rest of us. I wonder what would happen if the next time a cop speaks to me I decide I dont want him near me and I administer a slap to the face as a warning for him to BACK OFF?
While I agree with you in principle, MG, the slap wasnt the first warning. Its not like it was totally unprovoked. If someone is shouting and yelling in your face you might be forgiven for giving them a slap to warn them off.
To me it looked like she was kicking off over the other chap behind being man-handled when he got mouthy, so she got mouthy too? Very odd thing to do.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/police-to-target-hippies-with-video-cameras-200904151702/ ]beat up hippies with camera's[/url]
so you think that the front line Police should have the right to issue summary 'justice'? without the need to follow guidelines and best practices outlined by professionals (including senior policeman) who have decades of experience?
"Removing or covering identification numbers in public order situations is nothing new. "
Premeditated cowardice from the most thuggish gang in this country.
I'd be less scared to walk past a gang of hoodies on the street corner.
And to think that I respected them as a yoof.(the cops, that is).
coffeeking
While I agree with you in principle, MG, the slap wasnt the first warning. Its not like it was totally unprovoked. If someone is shouting and yelling in your face you might be forgiven for giving them a slap to warn them off.
Someone shouting in your face is not pleasant, but it's not to be mistaken with aggressive physical posturing. If anyone here was confronted by a small shouting woman on the way home from work we would simply ignore them, not slap them then beat them. The police SHOULD be professional enough to distinguish between an angry person and a person who poses a threat to their safety.
As I understand it the law of the land allows you to use appropriate force in response to a force that has been acted upon you, or if it's clear that the other person has adopted a fighting stance and is preparing to strike you. I didnt see that in this case. From the cops body language it's obvious he wants to lash out.
If one man is shouting at another man, the man who administers a slap to the face is hardly going to calm the situation down is he? It's an escalation in violence. If the woman was acting illegally (or not) she should have been restrained and arrested for breach of the peace.
If she was trying to attack the officer with a weapon this would be a measured response, she wasn't, it's not. It's wanton brutality because he thought he could get away with it.
[i]What, back off or I'll attack you with a baton? [/i]
Seems fair to me, like I said, any NORMAL person would have backed off.
An officer wants someone to back off. Just because a person ('normal' or otherwise)might back off from an assault does not mean it is fair.
They would definitely back off from having their teeth kicked in, and it would have produced the officer's desired result. Would that seem fair too?
sdSeems fair to me, like I said, any NORMAL person would have backed off.
So normal people are the kind who suffer a blatant assault at the hands of the police and just happily go on their way? If it's abnormal to be even more annoyed to have just been assaulted without justification by a police man then colour me abnormal.
The IRA used to have a measured response to police who got heavy handed over here - they murdered them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If she's going to antagonise the police for doing their job (ie being there in the first place to 'control the crowd') she deserves a slap. Otherwise, walk away and don't get involved.
MisterGnar - as jimmy above alludes to I think sd's take is that through her own actions, her involvement in the protest, the event itself etc, all effectively take her out of the "normal" classification. I kind of agree that she doesnt have exactly the same expectations as to how she will be tretaed by the police as a "normal" person just going about their business on a normal day.
If someone shouts at a police officer in the way she was they should be professional enough to realise that it is directed at the job, not at them personally. That being the case they should also be professional enough to either ignore abuse or use calm language and manner to diffuse the situation. The woman presented no physical threat and as such any kind of violence was wrong. I've seen loads of police violence in those "police, camera, action" programmes that goes unpunished, but at a highly media covered protest the response by the police should be even more professional than would normally be expected. In this case it was not.
I love a bit of old time law and order. Judge Dredd.
I'm sorry but that still doesn't excuse anything. If police are called to an incident where someone is acting aggressively - lets say a homeless man who's drunk and has been sniffing glue has been shouting at passers by, thats hardly normal is it? So lets imagine he starts shouting at the police, doesnt take much to imagine that might actually happen. Are they then excused for slapping him or beating him with impunity given that he is not a "normal" person going about his business?
Of course not.
[i]The IRA used to have a measured response to police who got heavy handed over here - they murdered them. Two wrongs don't make a right. [/i]
True
[i]So normal people are the kind who suffer a blatant assault at the hands of the police and just happily go on their way?[/i]
In that situation, yes, backing off would be the sensible option, why, what other option would you have MG if you were in her shoes?
they should just take him out, what is he doing for society.
sdIn that situation, yes, backing off would be the sensible option, why, what other option would you have MG if you were in her shoes?
Probably exactly what she did, which was to get more angry, given that she had just been assaulted by the police, without justification, in front of dozens of other police officers. It's not much of an option but it's one of the few you have when bullied.
Funny how in this situation "sensible behaviour" equates to behaviour which limits your risk of being brutally beaten by a police officer without justification. Something is wrong with that.
And there was me thinking the Police were there to protect and serve. Only if you're a politician it seems.
The woman was only standing up for something she believes in, something she 'should' have a right to do.
what happened there MG [edit] I thought you were in her shoes for a minute 😉
[i]Funny how in this situation "sensible behaviour" equates to behaviour which limits your risk of being brutally beaten by a police officer without justification.[/i]
True.
I am a big supporter of the Police, and for the most part think they did a superb job at the G20.
In the case of this particular incident, it does appear that this individual officer went a bit OTT.
[i]The woman was only standing up for something she believes in, something she 'should' have a right to do. [/i]
Which she does
And gets beaten for it.
The woman was only standing up for something she believes in, something she 'should' have a right to do.
You can stand up for things without being outwardly agressive, provocative and abusive to those simply trying to maintain order while you do so. If you chose to kick off, verbally or physically, or both, you can expect someone will react to put you down quickly so as to reduce the number of people who turn around and get caught up in the mass hysteria.
coffeeking If you chose to kick off, [b]verbally or physically[/b], or both, you can expect someone will react to [b]put you down quickly[/b] so as to reduce the number of people who turn around and get caught up in the mass hysteria.
Oh right, so it's official then, we do live under a brutal oppressive regime now do we? Verbal or physical demonstration will be dealt with violently without question.
I think you'll find that actions such as that only incite more violence or mass hysteria, I can promise you that.
Maybe one day the people in power will get their wish, and everyone will stay home and leave them to do what they wish unchallenged, but it will be a sad day.
ck - really, you're becoming absurd. Do you honestly think that the cop acted to "reduce the number of people who turn around and get caught up in the mass hysteria" ?? Do you think he succeeded? He was wrong, plain and simple, to raise his hand, to act with violence.
First time I ever wrote to my MP - Ian Tomlinson death
Second time - this incident
The officer concerned should be dismissed and charged with assault - there is no excuse for such mindless violence
you can expect someone will react to put you down quickly so as to reduce the number of people who turn around and get caught up in the mass hysteria.
What utter bollocks. You can see clearly in the video that this kind of behaviour was far more likely to incite violence than to control it.
out of interest to all the pro sack the copper lot . what would you have done in his shoes (and no i dont mean wee in them ) 😉
what would you have done in his shoes
Sorry- I can't imagine being a thug so can't really answer that
i dont mean being a thug, i mean if you were doing his job at that moment in time what do you think your actions would have been ?
I would have arrested her, not punched her in the face, then beaten her and finally legged it leaving my mates to face the potential riot.
adopted a non agressive posture
spoken to her, not at her
NOT slapped her round the face
etc
on the face of it , looks like the police officer has gone over the top, but none of us were at the scene and dont know what went on beforhand, or the attitude of the group.
police officers can make pre-emptive strikes against people if they feel they are going to be assaulted.
therfore, for arguments sake, the officer tells a woman to move back, she continues to move forward, he can , if he feels threatened, make a pre-emptive strike, I.e hit her in the face, should he feel that this level of force is proportionate to the threat level.He could have felt that she had a concealed weapon,she may have been part of an organised group bent on confrontation. On the other hand she could have been caught up in the crowd, and making her way home.
Im not saying this is the case with the featured officer, because i was not at the scene,
does anyone remember the incident in wigan a few months ago, where a soldier was 'asaulted by 3 officers'
it was wideley reported on T.V and the cctv images looked shocking, i saw that incident in real life, and the soldier has previously assaulted a female on the street, and been extremeley violent to officers, none of this was recorded on tape.
Im not defending the officer in the met, but im not hanging him either.
I would have stood there and watched her. If she attacked me I would have restrained her and arrested her.
easygirl
on the face of it , looks like the police officer has gone over the top, but none of us were at the scene and dont know what went on beforhand, or the attitude of the group.
police officers can make preemptive strikes against people if they feel they are goping to be assaulted.
therfore, for arguments sake, the officer tells a woman to move back, she continues to move forward, he can , if he feels hreatened, make a pre-emptive strike, I.e hit her in the face, should he feel that this level of force is proportionate to the threat level.
The attitude of the group is irrelevant. What went on beforehand is also irrelevant because it's obvious from the video the cop strikes the woman without justification. Unless you are trying to suggest that the woman assualts the police officer first and he ignores it, only to react to a verbal provocation shortly after?
Is striking someone in the face an appropriate response if you feel threatened by a bit of verbal? Is that what police are trained to do? Does that apply to members of the public who are getting verbal abuse from police? What are the guidelines regarding proportionate response?
Personally, I'duv ****ted anyone who came near me, and given them a good kicking.
But I don't have the requisite degree of control of my emotions and anger, needed to be a copper in such a tense and hostile situation.
Having been in situations like these, and much worse, I've seen how tensions can rise, and boil over. The crowd are angry, the coppers are wound up and scared, and it's a recipe for disaster.
The real failure, was by the police leaders, who employed aggressive tactics from the beginning. Not helped by the actions of a few mindless thugs. I'd like to see that same copper, without the uniform and protective stuff, baton etc, up against a bloke of his size. Would he be so brave then? Probbly not. Bullies usually aren't. His colleagues acted with restraint. He din't, and has proved not to be fit to do the job. Stick the nasty **** on the dole.
As for identification; I think there should be new legislation, whereby coppers at events like this must carry their id numbers at all times, and those numbers should be highly visible and easily recognisable. Not carrying personal id numbers is wrong, as it can lead to difficulty in identifying those coppers what transgress, and break the Law. There needs to be more accountability, on an individual level, and collectively.
Recently, there were some armed Babylonians running round me estate. I went down and questioned why they were running round with guns, when there were people with kids around. They were extremely rude tro me, and one thug had a go at me for being 'cocky'! I said 'listen, sonny, you're a public servant, and your job is to uphold the Law. If I ask you a question, you mind yer manners, and either respond politely, or just tell me that you can't discuss it. No need to give it, 'cos you've got a gun in your hand.'
The bloke was just a big bonehead violent thug; probbly hand-picked for the job. ****ing Neanderthal.
They buggered off, and I 'phoned the local station to report his behaviour. I got a 'phone call later, from a senior officer, to apologise for the thug's behaviour. The bloke told me that the thug's behaviour was unacceptable, and that he'd no right to talk to me the way he did.
I doubt owt was done to discipline him, though.
The Babylonians need to remember who they work for.
From what i can see the officer was makeing room for his fellow officers to deal with the troubble behind. ( weather thats was from he ketteling or not i cant say) So the press see this and all surge forward for the 1 milling pound photo for tomorrows news.
He orders them back. He then uses resonable force to move the lady back as shes not obaying a command from a police officer whos looking out for fellow officers.
Rather than backing off and giving space she steps up to the officer who has turned away partialy to move others back, he again moves her away this time with a back hand slap again to move her back. she again stepped up again and this time takes a blow to the leg to move her back.
The threat was not from the single womman moveing forward it was the press of bodys that may of crushed the officers on the floor dealing with the original problems, The sargent had to protect them so i find 3 blows used for that a fine and justifiable use of force to protect his fellow officers.
In that situation im afraid a cheary "im sorry old chap but would you mind just backing up a bit" does not cut it.
OMG
Not carrying personal id numbers is wrong, as it can lead to difficulty in identifying those coppers what transgress, and break the Law. There needs to be more accountability, on an individual level, and collectively.
So, you'll be fully in favour of carrying an ID card then, I assume?
It's a screwed up world if you can't back-hand a woman anymore FFS !! 🙄
lol rich. i was just curious as i dont know what i would have done. and ive spent the last almost 20 years in the army and now fire service and have had to deal with some right ****s.
not saying she was indeed a right **** either as the footage is too short to form an educated opinion on her really
i was just wondering really as a lot seem quick to try sack the copper , what sort of situations they themselves had been in to decide that they would be able to act properly under stress
ive been shot at, bricked, assulted , glassed , spat at and taunted/abused all whilst doing my job . oddly been shot at twice whilst in the fire service ;-( . ive also taken a batoning (if thats a word from the boys in blue . german police did it as i looked like the person they were looking for (ie short hair and english 😉 and the navy provo as they didnt like marines 😉
but i still couldnt say what id do in that situation as i wasnt there at that point in time. id be fairly sure i wouldnt do what he did but that is purely as it was a woman if it were a bloke then it may be a different story.
its hard to say what anyone in those situations would do unless they are in the thick of it . ive acted badly in some instances when the situation turned. only a few months ago i was ticked off for throwing bricks back at the group who were bricking us whilst we put out a fire but at the time it seemed the thing to too. all i was doing in reality was reloading their weapon ;-(
sorry to ramble but it just astounds me how people can form an instant opinion on things without seeing the whole picture and those that can do it having never been in a situation in any way like it
i'll stop waffling now, and yes he shouldnt have struck her from that little clip 😉 (but if hed have slapped her right to start with he wouldnt have needed the baton
igmc 😉
more excellent (and proportionate) police work @ camp for climate change:
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/993
note the chants of 'this is not a riot'
more on the kettle:
Verbal abuse is difficult for a baton wielding armour clad policeman to take...personal traits take over and boom...flashpoint
My post was hypothetical....I don't agree/disagree with what the police officer did...why...because I WASN'T there...
Seems like all the 'pro lets hang the cop' brigade were there....how amazing a coincidence is that??
He then uses reasonable force to move the lady back as shes not obeying a command from a police officer who's looking out for fellow officers.
Did he bollocks! As she was not breaking any Law, she don't have to 'obey' the copper at all. The police are public servants, not the other way around.
CFH; I am not a public servant. Therefore, I have no need to carry ID. Having visible ID would make it easier to identify individual officers, and be beneficial in any legal cases concerning inappropriate use of police powers. And it might make the thugs think twice, if they know they can be easily identified. Not having ID is obstructive to Justice.
[i]I would have arrested her,[/i]
& possibly escalate the situation, its not a easy one to call in the heat of things.
[i]As for identification; I think there should be new legislation, whereby coppers at events like this must carry their id numbers at all times, and those numbers should be highly visible and easily recognisable. Not carrying personal id numbers is wrong, as it can lead to difficulty in identifying those coppers what transgress, and break the Law. There needs to be more accountability, on an individual level, and collectively. [/i]
I agree, I think the police locally were boosted by officers from other forces, so might not have had the same level of training/experience/confidence.
So these officers called from other districts, would they volunteer for this job and if so, I wonder how many saw this as a foreign [anything goes] holiday?
it might make the thugs think twice, if they know they can be easily identified. Not having ID is obstructive to Justice.
So, you'll be fully in favour of carrying an ID card then, I assume? 😉
micki was just wondering really as a lot seem quick to try sack the copper , what sort of situations they themselves had been in to decide that they would be able to act properly under stress
Speaking purely as a civilian, I've been in a not dissimilar situation to that on two occasions. Both occasions I managed to not strike anyone. Perhaps if I had the full backing of "the force" behind me I might have beaten people with impunity.
I've witnessed/been caught in numerous riots so I think I have a fair amount of context to weigh that up against.
I'm not someone charged with upholding Law and Order, as a Public Servant. 😉
Just as well, really.
I'd be like Jack Regan.
'Look, I've not had any sleep, and I'm not in the mood to muck about. Put yer trousers on, yer nicked!'
Mick (firestarter).....excellent excellent post! Was going to state exactly the issues that you raise!
Though Id hardly put what the FS has to deal with in the same vein as the police.....I know dribble stains on your pillow can be traumatising but come on 😆
