So how close were we to guns pulled yesterday?

OK, which illegal tactics are they?

Beating innocent people with truncheons?

You wouldn’t have bothered mentioning it if it wasn’t getting to you Napoleon

Proof that Z-11 has, after failing to impress with his right-wing rhetoric and referererererences to unrelated court rulings, fallen back on resorting to personal insults. As predictable as the hangover I’ll get if I drink too much beer. 🙄

Come on Labby; you can do better than that. You’re disappointing us on this thread, actually. A pitiful performance.

Why not take up an entertaining hobby, ooh, like shooting, frinstance? Get rid of some of that pent-up rage?

I couldn’t help sniggering at that video………..now I feel bad. Damn you yunki 🙁

Racist. 🙁

Zulu-Eleven – Member

“Anyone who went into parliament square was in breach of the agreed protest route, they entered into this of their own free will – with rights, go responsibilities!”

See this is interesting. Because they were exercising their right to demonstrate, but as you point out that right was being restricted. So if rights go with responsibilities, does that mean that with restricted rights go diminished responsibilities?

Interesting insight into police mentality …

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/ruralshire-tactical-tees-available-now-for-christmas/%5B/url%5D

My take on it is that the democratic right to protest about the fees,and the reasons for doing this,are now forgotten by the general public by the behaviour of the rioters.Nobody will remember WHY they were marching, EVERYONE will remember how it played out….Which suits the police

Nobody will remember WHY they were marching……

I’m pretty sure most people know it’s about tuition fees.

I’m also pretty sure that the protests would hardly have got any mention by the media if they had been completely peaceful and uneventful affairs. I suspect that they would mostly have been ignored. That’s not to say that violence and vandalism is a good thing of course, I just can’t understand the logic which suggests that recent events have detracted from tuition fees.

In the last couple of weeks there has been U turns and major concessions by the government over tuition fees, as a direct result of the huge publicity.

And despite the fact that the policy was drawn up by two LibDem MPs, Alexander and Cable, the majority of LibDem MPs refused to support it. In fact two former LibDem party leaders and the current LibDem President, voted against the policy. In the end even some Tory MPs rebelled, and it turned out to be a far closer vote than anyone had anticipated.

I have absolutely no doubt at all that none of that would have happened if the policy had just been meekly accepted by students and school children and there had been no demonstrations. The demonstrations generated huge publicity, and undoubtedly had some positive and significant effect on the issue.

Which suits the police

And I don’t why you think that it would “suit” the police if everyone forgot what the protests were about. Have the Police Federation got a policy of supporting massive increases in university fees then ?

well thats ilegal, shirley?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/12/student-protests-met-police-chief

I’m pretty sure most people know it’s about tuition fees.

………………..and cuts to EMA.

Arguably a bigger scandal than that of tuition fees but no one really seems to care.

EMA yes the pasty shops in town now will be gutted they have stopped this given the number of students constantly in them.

What I meant Ernie is that the strong arm tactics which were employed are to an extent,diluted and in some peoples eyes,justified by people swinging on union Jacks etc.The members of the police fed certainly have a history of supporting tactics such as kettling etc.
I do think the violence overshadowed the real reason for the marches and has lost the issue some credibility,certainly in the eyes of people who are unlikely to be impacted by the fees,and I don’t just mean members of Pink Floyd.Nobody who reads a tabloid is interested in the peaceful protest.
On another note; As a teacher, the EMA was a disaster from beginning to end.Supposed to ensure that the “less well off” could stay at school,while teaching them to take responsibility for their own learning i.e behave….Didn’t work, I never heard of anybody losing it.

the pasty shops in town now will be gutted they have stopped this given the number of students constantly in them.

What ? the poor want to eat and be educated ? Scum, deserve everything they (don’t) get.

I never heard of anybody losing it

they all will soon

well thats ilegal, shirley?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/12/student-protests-met-police-chief

I think it is legal, just branded unacceptable.

Which means unacceptable is acceptable if you would rather not get caught for beating people over the head.

………………..and cuts to EMA.

Arguably a bigger scandal than that of tuition fees but no one really seems to care.

Which they are protesting about across the country today.

But this is all endemic of the governments wish to stifle the opportunity for people to be socially mobile.

Put obstacles in the way at every opportunity for people to try to

Tick…Tock…..awaits pupils kicking off….Tick…Tock. Maybe a complete boycott of classes this afternoon would get the message across 😀

But this is all endemic of the governments wish to stifle the opportunity for people to be socially mobile.

Put obstacles in the way at every opportunity for people to try to

Agreed.

🙄

Wondered where you’d got to, Labby! 😀

Not sure what your point is mind.

From DrJ’s link above:

The irony of this whole situation is that the so called Kettle was designed to compensate for the fact that we (uniquely in Europe) are not equipped properly for public disorder. We have no water cannon, no baton rounds and no CS gas grenades. We don’t have these things because it disturbs the liberal conscience. [/url]

Hmm. Maybe that’s why they (illegally) resort to using Halon gas fire extinguishers instead.

you mistook my opinion trail monkey
I was simply saying that they spend the money on things not related to their studies an it enables them to buy lunches in town rather than a cheaper alternative- packed lunch for example. I could have easily said they will need to get a cheaper mobile phone/contract now for example. Very few spend it on bus passes , books and pens so I am not sure how useful it is as an incentive – we will see how many dont register for the second year next Septemeber I doubt it will make much difference.
I am aware all surveys say it is useful before you post them up – IME people do like free money

(illegally) resort to using Halon gas fire extinguishers instead.

Now you see Elfin, there you go, throwing round specific allegations of illegality 🙄

On what basis do you say that using a fire extinguisher, even against a protester, is illegal

where *in law* would it be illegal?

The police have an absolute duty to maintain public order – they, legally, are allowed to do anything they need to do so, up to and including lethal force if proportionate and necessary. They can use CS gas, tazers, baton rounds and water cannon if necessary – now then, if they can use all those things legally, on what basis do you make the claim that using a fire extinguisher is illegal?

C’mon, state a law which prohibits a police officer the use of halon gas fire extinguisher *if* he feels it is necessary to use one to distract, dissuade or divert someone in the process of keeping public order! You made a specific allegation of illegality, back it up!

From DrJ’s link above:

The irony of this whole situation is that the so called Kettle was designed to compensate for the fact that we (uniquely in Europe) are not equipped properly for public disorder. We have no water cannon, no baton rounds and no CS gas grenades. We don’t have these things because it disturbs the liberal conscience.

Hmm. Maybe that’s why they (illegally) resort to using Halon gas fire extinguishers instead.

I suppose THIS is what they have in mind …

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20101006-30295.html

on what basis do you make the claim that using a fire extinguisher is illegal?

Can you really not work it out ratty ? Are you really that daft……or is it just all an act ?

Using the toxic gases from a fire extinguisher to disable a demonstrator is neither proportionate nor necessary and therefore illegal. In the same way as killing a guy walking home with his hands in his pocket is illegal.

Apologies Junkyard.

Fact remains, there will be less income coming in to low income households, which will have a negative effect on parents encouraging their kids to stay on in education.

You made a specific allegation of illegality, back it up!

Behave yourself Labby. Seriously; you’ll do yourself a mischief.

Violence begets violence. The more extreme tactics the police use, the more violent the response. Hence the need for restraint. TBH the police are creating a rod for their own backs, by using such provocative tactics.

Using the toxic gases from a fire extinguisher to disable a demonstrator is neither proportionate nor necessary and therefore illegal.

toxic – well, we’ve covered that one, since its an INERT gas, do you understand that, inert means non-toxic – plus, by your own admission, the gas is not being sprayed at the demonstrator, its being sprayed near the demonstrator, so, as I said, to divert or distract them!

Regardless spraying someone in the face with CS or Pepper to incapacitate them is, as is done on a daily basis by police officers is perfectly legal, so on what basis do you allege that a non toxic gas is not legal – and you’ve still not got away from the fact that the police are permitted to use CS gas (and have done so in mainland britain in the past) and have the clearance to use baton guns if they feel it is necessary to do so.

In the same way as killing a guy walking home with his hands in his pocket is illegal.

Really, because we haven’t seen anyone prosecuted for this “illegal” act have we Elfin?

The law is a binary process – its either legal, or its illegal, no ground inbetween – you’ve made specific allegations of illegality that you use to reinforce your anti police hyperbole, if you’re going to make them, then be prepared for someone to shoot them down!

Violence begets violence

Very true indeed. Works both ways though.
Maybe a wealthy benefactor could donate some armour, shields etc to the grubby students?
Might even it up a bit and make for some entertaining viewing. I’m getting a bit bored of club/student head interfaces.

Leave it- it’ll keep him occupied for a bit. He’ll be off to dig up some obscure legal stuff he thinks proves his point. Keeps him happy I spose. 😕

Maybe a wealthy benefactor could donate some armour, shields etc to the grubby students?
Might even it up a bit and make for some entertaining viewing. I’m getting a bit bored of club/student head interfaces.

Hmm, I was thinking of something like that myself. What about a ‘fighting area’ at demos, so’s thugs on all sides can go and have a good ruck, get it out of their systems? Then everyone else could concentrate on the protest, and be more peaceful.I was going to say Labby might enjoy it, but I fear he’s more of an ‘internet warrior’ really. Oh well.

toxic – well, we’ve covered that one, since its an INERT gas, do you understand that, inert means non-toxic

The dictionary I’m using defines “toxic” as “Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous” and it is in that context that I use that word. You’ll find that the English language allows you to do that sort of thing, you know, like “toxic” debt etc.

Furthermore, I understand that the gases in those fire extinguishers have a detrimental effect on the ozone layer, so I fail to understand how they can be inert and yet react with O3. Still, you’re the lab technician – you tell me.

But well done you, for getting hung up on a word 🙄

No Ernie you see Labby isn’t actually interested in the ‘debate’; he needs to ‘win’ the argument to satisfy his ego. No point in engaging with him really. Just let him have his little rant, let him show off a bit.

z-11 Where is the police’s “absolute duty to maintain public order”? The public and students also have an absolute right to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend themselves from officers who act outwith the execution of their duty and to escape false imprisonment by those officers. Police officers are citizens in uniform no more and no less. They should not be assaulted but it is perfectly legal to hit them with weapons if necessary to defend yourself from an attack that you believe is coming from them so long as the force you use is proportionate to the attack you believe is coming. Same rules for us all in effect.
“Really, because we haven’t seen anyone prosecuted for this “illegal” act have we Elfin? ” no but we all saw a man walking along with his hands in his pockets struck with a baton from behind then pushed over . we all saw that the officer had his face masked and Id numbers removed we all saw that none of the other officers acted to stop or id or detain the assailant. Many saw that a row of officers tried to prevent an ambulance getting through to Tomlinson. And we all read how the “investigation” went awry because of a belief that a jury would be confused by the original police post mortem from a questionable pathologist and a six month time limit was “missed”.

Policing Public Order events is hugely complex, far from having an absolute duty to maintain some Orwellian concept of public order the police have a number of competing duties they deserve our sympathy and support but not unquestioning allegiance or blind faith. When individual officers lose it they should be identified and dealt with by the law when senior officers make bad tactical decisions they too should expect scrutiny and to be brought to book. Citizens in this country have died as a result of both levels of police service wrong doing. In a free society we should not just accept that. Just as we should support and assist the prosecution of those who attack officers in the execution of their duty we should also be willing to hold the police service to account.

Ah, sounds sort of like you’re trying to now back out of your corner Elfin.

Nothing to do with ‘winning the point’ more to do with pointing out that if you cannot be bothered to be accurate in your allegations, and instead choose to resort to hyperbole with wild, false allegations against the police that they broke the law , then it sort if undermines the rest of your comments on the thread, when you go on to explain how “its all the police’s fault, innit, coz throwing bricks at dem is fair becoz dey broke the law!”

Actually Labby; here’s a little task for you:

Find me the list of permitted weapons that UK police carry/can use. And the definition of ‘proportionate and reasonable force’.

Off you go.

@crankboy

Is it really legal to whack a copper if you feel endangered?
I’m not particularly enamoured with the rozzers or the unwashed so I’ll just enjoy watching them hit lumps out of each other.

Where is the police’s “absolute duty to maintain public order”

Its part of the ancient office of constable, an oath, sworn in public, answerable to the Queen (not to politicians) as an independent officer of the law – The Office of Constable is unique because it is the duty of police officers to protect life and property, preserve order, and prevent the commission of offences and where an offence has been committed, to take measures to bring the offender to justice.

The public and students also have an absolute right to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend themselves from officers who act outwith the execution of their duty and to escape false imprisonment by those officers

They also have a legal duty to prevent and arrest a breach of the peace (yes, really, all citizens do!) so if you want to get technical, thenunless they fulfil that duty themselves they are also engaged in criminal behaviour! regardless kettling has been ruled legal in the highest court in the land, and the police therefore have a duty to follow a legal order given by their command

Are you really that daft……or is it just all an act ?

you really have to ask?

Is it really legal to whack a copper if you feel endangered?

It is actually. As long as the force you use is proportionate to the danger you feel is imminent, as Crankboy so brilliantly explains above. However, ‘self-defence’ would only be appropriate in a situation where the copper is acting unlawfully, or you believe their actions to be unlawful. You have the right to resist unlawful arrest. IE, if a copper comes and says ‘I’m arresting you for Xcrime’ which you know (and can prove) you haven’t committed, then I spose you have the right to resist arrest. Proving the copper lacked ‘reasonable grounds’ for arresting you would be another, pretty complicated matter I’d imagine.

You have to right to defend yourself from attack by anyone, including coppers. However, in reality, I suspect whacking a copper would take some explaining, and a bloody good lawyer to get you off.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Ah, sounds sort of like you’re trying to now back out of your corner Elfin.

Nothing to do with ‘winning the point’ more to do with pointing out that if you cannot be bothered to be accurate in your allegations, and instead choose to resort to hyperbole with wild, false allegations against the police that they broke the law , then it sort if undermines the rest of your comments on the thread, when you go on to explain how “its all the police’s fault, innit, coz throwing bricks at dem is fair becoz dey broke the law!”

Ratty, you must be the only person who thinks that the police never break the law on demonstrations. In fact, I would go so far as saying that even you don’t believe that. But yet you want everyone else to believe it.

You know, I really don’t mean to be rude ……… but you really are unbelievably daft 😕