MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I think he was wrong to deliver the kick to the head, I don’t believe he should automatically be sacked for it
He really should be. He's supposed to be trained and conditioned to not get in a situation where kicking some-one in the head is even an option. The thought shouldn't have even crossed his mind. He's an armed cop, what if he'd have gone for his gun?
It's either deliberate in which case he's no better than a thug, or it wasn't, in which case he'd lost control of both himself and the situation.
It’s either deliberate in which case he’s no better than a thug, or it wasn’t, in which case he’d lost control of both himself and the situation.
Or it's entirely justifiable and preferable to the ultimate step. We'll see what the inquiry says...
For anyone that's interested Channel 4 10pm tonight (or All 4) To Catch a Copper (2024). Documentary series about investigations into officer misconduct within the Avon and Somerset Police https://www.channel4.com/programmes/to-catch-a-copper
I don’t believe he should automatically be sacked for it
I don't either, maybe sacked but not automatically imo.
It depends on a number of factors imo including how much force was used - the punch which sky blue used to knock the police woman flat could have killed her had she hit her head on the concrete.
Would it have been more acceptable if the copper had punched sky blue in the face with greater force than he used to kick him in the face?
Part of problem I think is that a kick in the face sounds more emotive than a punch in the face. But I would expect a punch in the face with great force to a person standing upright to be potentially more dangerous than a kick in the face to someone in a horizontal position.
The other obvious factor is what the kick was to suppose to achieve. It is perfectly acceptable imo to kick someone in the face to stop them grabbing a knife, for example, although this obviously wasn't the case in this case. But the point is that you should not automatically sack a police officer for kicking someone in the face, imo.
It depends.
He’s an armed cop, what if he’d have gone for his gun?
Considering what went on at the start of the altercation I'm surprised he didn't.
I know the kick/stamp looked brutal in the original video, I'm not convinced they were as full blooded from the later, longer version. He certainly didn't have the facial damage I'd expect to see.
Not sure it's a sacking - removal from firearms temporarily or permanently.
Can you not see the contradictions in that short selection from one post?
According to your analysis the officer wrongly kicked someone in the head, but shouldn’t be sacked?
He was possibly at risk of further escalation, but absolutely in control of the situation?
And you can tell from what that the officer handled the initial meeting wrongly and that he was angry?
Contradictions ?. Possibly, but its not a black and white way we would expect a police tribunal to act with an instant dismissal. All reasons would be looked at and taken into account. At least I would hope so.
Sure he's blotted his copybook, and should receive at worst a final written warning, but this is how we do things. We look at this, we look at that and adapt the training accordingly. Its how we learn isnt it ? We learn from our mistakes.
And you can tell from what that the officer handled the initial meeting wrongly and that he was angry?
On this last point Its on the first part just human nature. He's been in a set to so of course he's going to be angry, or maybe angry isnt the best term, but Adrenalin is surging through. I think the English used to call it 'his bloods up'
On the last part as in how he handled the initial. Well we dont know what was said which might have played a part in the officer grabbing the suspect in a choke hold and trying to drag him to the ground. That kind of invites a bit of fisticuffs doesnt it.
You must have noticed the way in how the police deal with how they need to handcuff someone. its that now , and i think this is straight out of the American playbook. They seem not to need to overwhelm the suspect. No turn around, now "its get on the ground" - even if the suspect is being compliant and its a fair cop and all that.
I've seen enough interactions say for example a foot chase where the suspect gives up and even puts his hands behind him. Theres no attempt to cuff, no, its "Get on the ground" "Get on the ground" and they arent asking it, they are screaming it, and threatening violence if you dont do exactly what they say. I suppose i disagree with that the most, but again thats a rights thing.
In the airport scene, the officer went from touching his arm, to trying to drag him down to the floor. So maybe that was the wrong move and they should treat people with a bit more respect. After all, this isnt an authoritarian police state
People do have rights dont they ?. Or do you believe otherwise and people must obey unquestioningly ?
I take it that we the stew collective have viewed the actual whole vid footage leaked ?
If so then police authority who dealt with this situation should be highly praised.
I'd be really interested to see what happened (if anything) on cctv between disembarking the plane and the post security 'public' area where it really kicked off.
Going out on a limb, I suspect not a lot, if the boys were not on the flight and just meeting the mother in arrivals.. At which point she complains to them rather than the relevant authorities... And then they kick off big time... But that's pure conjecture on my part.
And then they kick off big time
They did, in Starbucks, which is why the police were called.
Guardian link - describes preceeding incidents
must obey unquestioningly
There's a pretty significant gap between objecting to being detained and beating the shit out of several officers
People do have rights dont they ?. Or do you believe otherwise and people must obey unquestioningly ?
What? So if you've been reported as violently attacking someone else and the police try to put you in cuffs you've got the right to put 3 officers in hospital by throwing punches at them?
What right exactly was breached by the police trying to arrest someone that they had reasonable suspicion was the recent perpetrator of a violent assault?
People do have rights don't they ?. Or do you believe otherwise and people must obey unquestioningly ?
Yes, if you’re being arrested you should obey unquestioningly. Argue the toss in court later. That’s the place for it.
You have a right to remain silent. You don’t have a right to beat the shit out of several coppers.
I have to say that, if a female colleague was picked and had her nose broken by someone like that guy in blue, I have no doubt that I would have reacted the same way the copper did. Now I totally accept that there is some misogyny involved in my response. But I prefer to put it down to decades of social conditioning. I would also hold a door open for most people - male or female, which seems quite inacceptable to many folks nowadays.
What I’m trying to say (badly) is that I feel it’s totally unrealistic to expect people to react to situations like this in the same way as us who are watching it in video with the benefit of hindsight.
I think that the copper should be cut some slack. I think anyone who attacks 3 cops like this guy did deserves just about anything they get.
There’s a pretty significant gap between objecting to being detained and beating the shit out of several officers
I'm still minded to wonder whether they didn't realise it was the police. I mentioned this yesterday, but certainly the brother in the grey shirt threw punches straight off the bat for a couple of seconds then a few moments later stopped short, sat down and put his hands on his head. If they just walked away from two bouts of fisticuffs then some guys grab them from behind...
Just like the officer, it's not an excuse, I'm just wondering WHY.
I’m still minded to wonder whether they didn’t realise it was the police
Understandable given the cunning disguises the coppers were all wearing.
then a few moments later stopped short, sat down and put his hands on his head
I think that had more to do with an officer pointing a taser at him than suddenly realising he was bang out of order.
They did, in Starbucks, which is why the police were called.
Guardian link – describes preceeding incidents
The thick plottens, lol, here we go... So they were spoiling for a fight, (probably coked and 'roided up) and ended up trying to fight armed police at an airport..slow clap for them!
I’m still minded to wonder whether they didn’t realise it was the police.
Say what now? people dressed as armed police in an airport? Wearing police uniform, armed, and pepper spraying/tazering them, and they didn't know if they were police?
You'll have to dig deeper for an excuse than that lol!
People like that have no place in society, nevermind in an airport.
Understandable given the cunning disguises the coppers were all wearing.
I wish I could put it as subtley as you, alas, I failed!
Hey, I don't know any more than you guys, I'm just throwing ideas out there - I'd hope you'd afford me the courtesy I've tried affording you, but sarcasm away if you must.
But the idea that your first reaction on being apprehended by armed police is to start throwing punches rings slightly odd to me. Especially as it seems likely the CCTV we've been recently discussing is not the starting point for the whole thing.
think that had more to do with an officer pointing a taser
And probably realising they were armed police and they were a bawhair away from getting shot if the carnage continued
But the idea that your first reaction on being apprehended by armed police is to start throwing punches rings slightly odd to me
You've clearly led a very sheltered life and not met some of the absolute headcases I have then
A well deserved kick imo, they were lucky they weren't in America or they would have been shot.
Well of course it could all have been a bit of a misunderstanding, but the most likely explanation is that they are just a pair of young thugs who won't hesitate to use violence.
I am genuinely interested in knowing if there is a third brother who is a copper. And whether he's a bit of a thug too.
For me it's not about whether the kick was 'deserved' or not, as (at others have said) it's not the police's job to dish out punishments. However, I do think the kick was probably justified from a self defence point of view.
but the most likely explanation is that they are just a pair of young thugs who won’t hesitate to use violence.
The most likely explanation is that they are drug dealers who had been home visiting Mum, to organise some imports.
You don’t behave like that unless your used to being around violence
I reckon the kick could have been harder and the stamp more conclusive without glancing off? I therefore think that the police officer showed restraint and his intention was to incapacitate rather than inflict more serious damage?
Public transport is the way to go when leaving airports. Saves the ridiculous car park charges!
I can't see any acrion against the Police in this instance. If the Police sack the officer, I can see him winning a case against the Police.
Those arrested don't seem to have a leg to stand on - they won't get any public sympathy - as menrioned that assault in America and they would have been shot.
The Met could teach GMP a thing or two on how to arrest a thug. It's a delicate art but the secret is to use overwhelming numbers...... never mind about 3 or 4 coppers, use a whole battalion.
The Met could teach GMP a thing or two on how to arrest a thug. It’s a delicate art but the secret is to use overwhelming numbers…… never mind about 3 or 4 coppers, use a whole battalion.
The Met had prior warning for the march, the GMP officers were called to an incident. Massive difference in resources there.
It wasn’t intended to be a genuine comparison. I posted it for the entertainment value of seeing a Tommy Robinson supporter get arrested.
Off topic, but hasn't 'dear Stephen/nice young man' fled the UK again to avoid facing uk court?
Do we (uk) still have European arrest warrant privileges post brexit?
Yes the convicted criminal was supposed to be in court today on contempt of court charges, but ironically he buggered off abroad proving just how much contempt he has.
A warrant for his arrest has been issued but it won't be executed until October, to give him a chance to get his sorry arse back here.
Personally I think it would be great if he doesn't come back, and I certainly would rather he wasn't extradited.
The Met could teach GMP a thing or two on how to arrest a thug.
Well not really, there's at least 12 officers just in that camera shot...
I mean, we could have 100 police officers in every airport on standby, 24/7, most of whom would be sat around doing nothing for months on end.
Real life isn't like hollywood movies, you can't just counjour up an extra ten or twenty police.
In the instance of the manchester airport incident, a small team of police responded rapidly to a very volitile situation... they were over powered by the objective fact that two of them were punched to the ground, and a third one was wrestled to the ground ...
I don't think any of the police involved would had envisioned they would be in a UFC/MMA/cage match that day, as they were armed.
So there are lessons to be learned from this for the police... don't take chances, and go in harder next time.
So there are lessons to be learned from this for the police… don’t take chances, and go in harder next time.
I'm curious as to what you see going in harder looking like?
From what I saw, we had the police officer go for the arms of the suspect, presumably to put the handcuffs on. That doesn't work so he immediately goes for a headlock. That actually seems to be less effective than going for the arms and he's left innefectually hanging off the guys neck. By this time big brother (who up until this point has been getting completely ignored by everyone) comes round to try to untangle the ineffective headlock. Police officer then releases little brother so he can take a swing at big brother (yes, he was the first one out of everyone present to throw a punch). He then gets several punches in return and the first thing he actually manages is to get his tazer out and get some control of the situation. Until little brother hits him from behind. Police officer number 4 then tazers the Tasmanian devil and the police officer who failed to control the arms, failed to get a headlock, and failed to punch the big brother out gets his second win of the day by putting boot to head.
Like I said, what would going in harder have looked like?
Its just a shame this whole incident was used as a racist attack by Police on innocent young Asians picking their mother up from the airport.
A few years ago in Glasgow the Police came under attack in the airport and the public came to the defence of the Police. John Smeaton and others were called heros fortrying to get the boot into the attackers andbanjoing` one of them.
Back then Glasgow airport was used to show how we come together when attacked by violent people. Its a real shame how racism was used in this incident, when the reality was it was just two very violent young men with no respect for the norms of civilised society .. attacking other passengers/Police/women.
Welcome to the forum emachine
Like I said, what would going in harder have looked like?
Draw gun, shoot violent ****(s) in the head.
Ideally 2 or 3 times.
I reckon that'd count as "going in harder"
Well their solicitor seems to think that there is more to this story than most people think, otherwise I can't see why he would be so keen to pursue it.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-man-stamped-cop-manchester-33378624
Since context is everything and already my personal opinion at what probably happened has changed a tad since the story broke I guess that keeping an open mind wouldn't be a bad thing.
That's fair enough.. at least the solicitor this time is wearing a suit rather than a gym-membership T-shirt.
The family have now demanded to know "on what legal basis" the video should be shown to a politician before they were given an opportunity to see it
That takes some front, to be saying the other party - in this case the mayor of Manchester, who is ultimately in charge of the police in Manchester - has questions to answer about who saw what video and when? After they went public to literally kick this off, with their somewhat selectively edited video footage
And this…
"As for leaking of CCTV, we understand that will also form part of their investigation, but whilst it may be blatantly obvious who would benefit from such a cynical and partial leak, proving who the individual or 'institution' is likely to be impossible.
You’re well into taking the piss territory with that statement. I don’t know how they’ve got the nerve to be referring to ‘cynical and partial’ footage,
That new layer might wear not be sporting a pair of sunglasses and a shiny suit, but he’s clearly just as much of a chancer as the last one
You really really seem to hate these guys. And anyone who dares to represent them.
You'd think we'd have learned that it's a good idea to wait until all the information is available before judging but you seem very keen to bring back hanging for this case.
Personally I'm going to wait a bit, if you don't mind. Like I said earlier, I've got a lot of questions about how this arrest was carried out. I'm struggling to believe that's how police who are carrying guns generally wade into an arrest. Why did this one make such a cock up of it?
Not to mention the police's actions after the big punch up and tazering.
But yeah, you seem to have made up your mind but do you mind if the rest of us wait and see? I'm not sure, when dealing with GMP, leaping to conclusions based on the footage they've chosen to leak is a good idea.
In other and I'm sure completely unrelated news:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cek9e054kxro
You really really seem to hate these guys. And anyone who dares to represent them.
Not at all. They seem like really lovely, charming young men.
As for their first lawyer - who’s social media campaign was off the ground before the female officer they'd punched in the face had chance to wipe the blood from her broken nose - he seems like a fine, upstanding pillar of the legal profession.
In other and I’m sure completely unrelated news:
…. some whataboutery?
Well, their new lawyer is a well respected human rights lawyer and not what anyone would describe as a chancery.
If the fact that two women (who also happen to be police officers) got punched in the face is clouding your judgement and making you go a bit daily mail comments section then that's one thing.
If I were you I'd be careful about what I said and about who in this particular thread. Otherwise people might get the wrong idea.
I
In other and I’m sure completely unrelated news:
Police are recruited from society. Society has racists and some will join the police, who at some point will be exposed and dealt with. I'm encouraged by that
clearly trying to find any angle to exploit, to stop the two pond life lads going to prison for a long time. If new lawyer can muddy the waters enough to reach some kind of deal then they will see that as a success. There was nothing "Cynical" about leaking the additional CCTV, it's factual footage and exactly where they started from too. The "leaked" additional footage probably stopped riots developing in several UK cities.
Well, their new lawyer is a well respected human rights lawyer and not what anyone would describe as a chancery.
He may be a well respected human rights lawyer, but he’s never off the news up in Scotland. He clearly recognises the value of publicity.
If this had been two of the EDL guys in Stockport do you think a few on here would be defending them so hard and querying everythin the police did so much?
Party A is claiming Party B breached his human rights by kicking him in the head.
Only after Party A had breached Party B’s and Party C’s human rights by punching them repeatedly in the face. Also after Party A has violently assaulted Party Unknown in Starbucks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Party A made his bed, and he should have the balls to lie in it.
Also after Party A has violently assaulted Party Unknown in Starbucks.
Surely if nothing else this case has highlighted the importance of not coming to conclusions without knowing all the facts?
Where is your evidence concerning who violently assaulted who in Starbucks? And as far as I am aware the other party are not "unknown". It would appear that they were arrested and released on police bail, which suggests a possible level culpability.
Seriously, haven't recent events at Manchester airport and Southport emphasised that we should be aware of all the facts before deciding who is guilty?
I honestly think the sight of two white women (who also happen to be police officers) getting punched viciously by an Asian man is messing with people's heads and some people are saying things they wouldn't normally say.
It's understandable because it's one of those things that is going to trigger an instinctive reaction that most people aren't used to but I think it's worth thinking very carefully about what we're feeling and then taking a step back and examining those feelings.
Anyone who says they aren't racist is either lying or simply hasn't spent enough time questioning their own reactions. I have plenty instinctive racist reactions, including to this incident, but I always try to take a step back and examine my feelings before jumping in.
I understand what I just said is really going to piss people off but I think it needed saying.
I absolutely understand that being a police officer is an incredibly tough job with incredible pressure to get everything right. However, I can also imagine that being Asian in a city where the police force has been described as institutionally racist also can't be particularly easy.
I think a bit of patience and understanding all round is needed until the complete story comes out. Until then, I really think this thread should be closed because there's a real risk of some people saying things they wouldn't normally say and regreting it.
I honestly think the sight of two white women (who also happen to be police officers) getting punched viciously by an Asian man is messing with people’s heads and some people are saying things they wouldn’t normally say.
They were on duty, police officers who happen to be 'white women', i think people are reacting to the level of violence straight off the bat with this incident, the police go and try to arrest the man at the machine, within 3 seconds the second man is throwing full blooded punches at everyone, people seem to be ignoring this fact, you have someone who has so much disregard for the law they're doing that even though they weren't the ones being arrested.
I honestly think the sight of two white women (who also happen to be police officers) getting punched viciously by an Asian man is messing with people’s heads and some people are saying things they wouldn’t normally say.
I don't think it's (just) this.
There is a completely non-racial issue of people breaking the law and then demanding (and gaining) protection from it.
We're lucky that we live in a society where all are protected by the law, and as we see in this case that includes the police who will be held to account for their actions. The difficulty is that the many criminals frequently and regularly break the law but are not held to account for all their actions.
That creates a very deep reaction in people who believe strongly in justice and I wouldn't want to confuse that reaction with racism.
I'm sorry, but my opinion of somebody who's reaction to being arrested is to start throwing haymakers into the faces of the police, including female officers, is going to be exactly the same irrespective of their colour. Its a total irrelevence.
They're exactly the same as the EDL idiots throwing bricks at the police, in my opinion. Just violent thugs, with a complete disrespect for the law. Colour doesn't come into it.
In fact the only reason racism, real or imagined, is an issue at all is because an oily lawyer tried to make it an issue by presenting a completely disingenous and heavily loaded set of 'facts' in the form of a very selelectively editted video to deliberatly provoke exactly the reaction it got
I can also imagine that being Asian in a city where the police force has been described as institutionally racist also can’t be particularly easy
There is racism in GMP, I don't think that's denied because it exists in society. Institutional racism is another thing all together and its eradication in policing has been worked on since the 1981 report by Lord Scarman.
In the 21st century, schools are more likely to show institutional racism in relation to, for example, dress codes and hairstyle policies, than policing
If this had been two of the EDL guys in Stockport do you think a few on here would be defending them so hard and querying everythin the police did so much?
Of course not. In fact, one forumite posted some "heavy handed" policing of one of Yaxley-Lennon's supporters being mobbed because he found it amusing...
Institutional racism is another thing all together and its eradication in policing has been worked on since the 1981 report by Lord Scarman.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-67542596
There's this. Then there's the recent suspensions due to racism in the GMP. This could be a sign that they are tackling the problem but it isn't a sign that they have fixed the problem.
I'm not sure if a bunch of white middle class people judging the reactions of young Asian people who have grown up being 'policed' by the GMP is a good look. Neither is claiming to know race has nothing to do with it.
At this time we know very little.
I’m not sure if a bunch of white middle class people judging the reactions of young Asian people who have grown up being ‘policed’ by the GMP is a good look. Neither is claiming to know race has nothing to do with it.
You're now making huge assumptions on how they've grown up and the society around them, the initial attack on the police, who were in uniform and clearly police, was an offensive attack by a third party to the arrest, this wasn't a defensive attack, it wasn't fight or flight, it was an individual attacking police officers without warning, then the first suspect did the same the instant his brother got involved.
And by the way, if you watch the video, the first person to throw a punch was the male police officer.
Or at least that's what it looks like to me.
But I'll wait until I see everything before jumping to conclusions.
I’m sorry, but my opinion of somebody who’s reaction to being arrested is to start throwing haymakers into the faces of the police, including female officers, is going to be exactly the same irrespective of their colour. Its a total irrelevence.
Probably worthy of another thread of its own but has anyone on here been arrested by the Police? Me and my mates were when we were young, for fighting with another bunch of lads when we were about 19. We were pretty far away from thinking about fighting the police, we were just terrified what our dads would say. Let out in the morning with no charge.
In fact, one forumite posted some “heavy handed” policing of one of Yaxley-Lennon’s supporters being mobbed because he found it amusing…
That was me. Although satisfying rather than amusing is how I would describe it.
I did find the dopey geezer taunting the police before being hit with bricks in the chest, back of the head, and bollocks, highly amusing though. In fact hilarious!
judging the reactions
No, it is never acceptable to react to a situation with physical violence, in almost any context.
It's also never acceptable to be racist.
Both are true and both equally required to maintain a civilised society.
If you think it is OK to throw punches then you're going to struggle to be accepted into society and why there are prison sentences for violent behaviour. Objecting to that violent behaviour has nothing to do with race.
How do you know he was deserving of such treatment? You don't, you just assumed he was...
No, it is never acceptable to react to a situation with physical violence, in almost any context.
So because the police officer was the first to throw a punch he should be the one in prison?
Again, what it looks like to me from the video.
But maybe we should wait for the whole story?
How do you know he was deserving of such treatment? You don’t, you just assumed he was…
He probably didn't deserve it. It's still hilarious though.
The dopey git was standing there with bricks flying in every direction taunting the old bill, in full riot gear, by gyrating his hips just inches away from them. Getting hit by three bricks in quick succession was pure comedy.
There’s this.
A leading equality advisor who is using the term wrongly
Then there’s the recent suspensions due to racism in the GMP.
Racism isn't the same as "institutionally racist"
This could be a sign that they are tackling the problem but it isn’t a sign that they have fixed the problem.
I applied to join the police in 1981, before Lord Scarman published his report. Institutional racism existed then, as did racism. Some forces, e.g. City of London insisted on male officers being a minimum of 6' tall, others were 5'10"
That's an example of institutional racism, how many people of a SE Asian background could fulfill those criteria?
Have you ever wondered why explanatory leaflets are available in any language you choose? That's another example
It's interesting how allegations of institutional racism in a case that allegedly started with a racist assault on an older woman is whataboutery but comparisons with the EDL are totally fine and valid.
The EDL are travelling to take part in racist demonstrations and to attack mosques plus whatever else they can find.
These guys travelled to the airport to pick up their mum where they found she'd been assaulted by a racist (allegedly).
Then a policeman punched one of them in the face after failing to handcuff the other (maybe).
I really really suggest everyone holds off on the nuclear hot takes for a while.
So because the police officer was the first to throw a punch he should be the one in prison?
Yes! And that would be the law working if a trial considered all the facts and came to that result. And it would be working fairly if others involved in physical violence in the same incident also got convicted.
This incident creates a strong, even visceral reaction because people feel that the law is (or could be) applied differently. The police are held to higher standard so the police officer is more likely to get the conviction. That is why people perceive this as unfair. Nothing to do with race.
~Edit - trail / trial
Yes! And that would be the law working if a trail considered all the facts and came to that result
Right, so let's leave all the hot takes and opinions expressed as facts until the investigation is finished and all the evidence comes to light.
You seem very keen to dismiss her allegations
She's using the term wrongly. Google it.