Heavy handling of protesters by police

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by husky03

bringing up events from hundreds of years ago and relating them to incidents nowadays that makes sense-not.

Care to pick one more recent then? Sayyy a certain square in China... Or disappearing people in Argentina?

Events which are the foundation for the society we have today are perfectly relevant. Despite them being hundreds of years ago.

1-I don't see the relation of events three hundred years ago to the way this was policed, so I find it funny that was posted-you don't like it thats your problem

2-You decided that my point was childish and pointless-maybe so, but you came to that decision and also posted it, so you are policing it.(And if you did come round my house and tried to man handle me like the police did on the vid i'm afraid your more than likely end up like Mr Hawkins)

3-Delete the post - couldn't give two flying f's-everything must be so serious eh?

4- Learn from history -yep your right, but ask the majority of people on here who john ashton,the tolpuddle martyrs and the levellers (not the singers i take it) are i'll reckon they haven't a scooby doo.

husky

[Spiderman]

I'm not going to get into a pointless circular deabte about this woth you but let me just say this...

Originally Posted by husky03

....I find it funny that was posted-you don't like it thats your problem

....you came to that decision and also posted it, so you are policing it.

So if you post something that i or someone else doesnt like or agree with it our problem, yet if i post something thats somehow "policing" is it?
Please.

Point i was attempting to make is that this has been a good debate so far without resorting to mick taking or offensive posts and to simly laugh at a post someone made was not very constructive of you. That was all.

Take it outside gentlemen otherwise the thread will be closed.

[Spiderman]

Sorry Stig, i was gonna add this to the bottom of my last post .... Anyway can we keep this on topic please cos i dont want an IB mod to lock this thread cos its getting way off topic... but i didn't wanna leave myself open to more accusations of "policing" the thread.

[Grant66]

It would be interesting to see the full video, unedited, on which to form an opinion as to police over reaction.

If taken at face value then I agree completely that this is not the way the police should be upholding the law. I do not want to live in a country where peacefull demonstrators actions are treated in this way, if I wanted that I'd move to Burma.
Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." and he was French.
I could see nothing in the video that constitutes 'obstruction', if anybody has watched 'street wars' on sky they will see a lot higher levels of abuse towards officers go completely unpunished.

What did the parts of the video that got edited out show? Maybe the evidence they were arrested for i.e. the obstruction didn't fit in with the story they wanted to report. Maybe the reason for subduing the women in this manor hit the cutting room floor. Maybe the reason the policeman stood on the woman's feet was because he was sick of being kicked in the shins.

The judge deciding to remand them will have seen all the evidence, we haven't. He refused bail.

We shouldn't accept that they were scum bag protesters and deserved it and we shouldn't assume the police on duty were thugs over reacting.

The most disturbing part of the report for me was that they claim they weren't allowed legal representation. Now that is the action of a tin pot dictatorship.

Sorry for the long post, but after 6 pages or reading I thought I might as well make it 7

Originally Posted by husky03

1-I don't see the relation of events three hundred years ago to the way this was policed, so I find it funny that was posted-you don't like it thats your problem

4- Learn from history -yep your right, but ask the majority of people on here who john ashton,the tolpuddle martyrs and the levellers (not the singers i take it) are i'll reckon they haven't a scooby doo.

husky

I will try and answer your points;

1 - It was my intention to raise the possibility that our 'right' to demonstrate is not a gift from the state but a hard won right for which other people in the past have died for.

4 - If you are not aware of these people/groups then you may wish to read up about them. English history is a rather interesting subject for me (and maybe others here) and I find it somewhat disappointing that we are (or at least were when I was at school) teaching kids only about Kings and Battles and ignoring the rich experiences of the vast majority of those that lived before us.

"By a free country, I mean a country where people are allowed, As long as they do not hurt their neighbours, To do as they like. I do not mean a country where six men may make five men do exactly as they like." - Lord Salisbury (1830 - 1903)

Originally Posted by Spiderman

Web slinging crime fighter extrodinairre...obviously.

TBH what i do to earn money is no representation of my life experiences or views. But if it helps i'm not at either end of the spectrum either, i mean i'm not police nor am i an active protestor.

I'm now curious what you may think it is i do.

I dont have any idea what you do, (although in a previous thread did you mention you were a solicitor?) its just interesting because in all walks of life you have people who are good and bad at their job.

A second point to make is that you have looked a piece which has been modelled by the media for a story, given a one sided account and have based your opinions upon it. None of us were at that demonstration so none of us know what has went on prior to the footage being rolled. Im not saying whether the officer was right or wrong as I dont know all the facts.

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by robchester

A second point to make is that you have looked a piece which has been modelled by the media for a story, given a one sided account and have based your opinions upon it. None of us were at that demonstration so none of us know what has went on prior to the footage being rolled. Im not saying whether the officer was right or wrong as I dont know all the facts.

Yes Rob that is true, we don't know how the film has been edited by the media. However, the cynical amongst us can level the exact same charge against the Police - it is police video footage and who knows what was cut out of it before it was released to the media? Also who knows what footage of other incidents has not been released, perhaps where the cameraman forgot to say 'Camera is recording'? You can't play the "you don't know the whole story" card, because we never will. We can only judge on the evidence put before us, much the way a jury does.

As I'm sure you are aware, securing a conviction or acquittal depends entirely on the evidence put before the jury. One of the skills of the barrister is to ensure only the 'right' evidence is heard.

So on the basis of the evidence available, it does look like excessive use of force against someone who made a perfectly valid request for an officer to identify himself.

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by robchester

(although in a previous thread did you mention you were a solicitor?)

Nope, not one of those either, tho i do have a strong interest in the law, hence i hate seeing those who are supposed to uphold it, abuse it to their own ideals.

Luckpants has given a great answer to the validity of the edited tape. One further thing i need to point out... no matter what else had occured at the scene that we do not see on the video evidence, the police officer holding the woman round the throat and forcing her face up for the camera to film, then following that up with a pressure point technique is just outrageous and uncalled for. The woman is already handcuffed and clealy not any threat to anyone. She is not resisting in any way so the application of the pressure point is simply a punishment one individual officer feels like giving out to her.
IMO he should be held accountable for assault as his actions in no way were reasonable force that was required to carry out the arrest.