Police SCUM

[Stu Monty]

I think this talk of manslaughter is foolish. It's guesswork.

[Strontium]

I think this talk of manslaughter is foolish. It's guesswork.

 

 

Not at all, obviously a lot depends on what the coroner's report says, but in my view it appears to be a clear cause and effect at play here. All you need to be able to say is that the assault was a contributory factor to the fatal heart attack.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

The fact the fella was walking a bit unsteadily could be he was feeling fucking ill in the first place, don't think ye'd appreciate getting shoved down the street and associated with people who have fuck all to do with you, whether you support their cause or not.

 

The copper who smacks him with the baton looks like a shithouse move, why not just fucking arrest the fella if he needs to be moved on and is causing obstruction... if that had have happened then maybe he may have got medical attention.

 

The real bad part in all of this is the fact that the met have said fuck all and hoped this would go away, initially when the news hit internationally it was made out that the fella who died was a protester, with the inference he'd been up to no good, teh police seemed happy with this relay of events, so it's good on those involved to have brought it to light.

 

Another case of poor judgement by the police, with the initial actions against the fella, and the follow up to deflect blame. No doubt the bizzy who did it would not have intended for the fella to be dead through any direct/indirect cause of his actions... but shit like this happens when those in authority don't "think" about their actions.... since the thatcher years and the miners strikes I believe police have been encouraged when faced with any kind of protest not to see the people but the mob and act accordingly

[She Knows It]

According to the papers today, he was a homeless alcoholic. Who's going to be arsed now? Nothing will come of this. It's a fucking disgrace. There's also talk of the witnesses who photographed/videoed the attack being prosecuted, as it's now apparently against the law to take a picture of a policeman.

[Charles Penrose]

Saw the video from the second angle today and it appears to be far more damning. I've spoken about it with six members of my shift and a Sergeant. Collectively the opinion is that the Officer was out of order. It wasn't anywhere near as clear in the first video.

 

I've no problem with pushing to be fair, but when it's preceded by a baton strike and there was no period of waiting to see if it had the desired effect then its out of order.

 

I would not want to be that Officer right now.

[rondeco]

According to the papers today, he was a homeless alcoholic. Who's going to be arsed now? Nothing will come of this. It's a fucking disgrace. There's also talk of the witnesses who photographed/videoed the attack being prosecuted, as it's now apparently against the law to take a picture of a policeman.

 

You cant expect it to be all wrapped up in a couple of days. It takes time for this to be done properly. Where are they talking of prosecuting people who recorded the attacks? I find that disgusting if true.

[Josef Svejk]

Don't know how to post gifs, so...

 

http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif

[INTORRESTING]

The warnings are generally given for a good five minutes before action is taken. Its not about walking away from them but actually leaving the area absolutely.

 

However common sense has to come into it too. People may be slower than others, may be ill, have mental health issues, learning difficulties, maybe they have even had a drink? That policeman would not have done that to a kid, a woman or a woman with a pram. They can hide behind their directives as much as they like but why did only one policeman strike? Who gave that order? Also why did they not help him when he was obviously struggling on the floor? That clip showed people doing their job but did not show any humanity. There are rules but judgement also needs to be use and that is something you cannot teach, morons following the rules to the letter can never be taught common sense or have the ability to look at things from different angles.

 

Some people get trained and want to use their training, i dont know whether it is for a release of their aggression?

 

The man may have died anyway but what worries me is that an a firm grip would have moved the guy along also how old was he just out of interest

[Hermes]

How do you know how he is normally?

 

I didn't, but it was obvious from the video that he wasn't coherent. It's now been confirmed that he was an alcoholic.

 

Elementary my dear Watson.

[Catch22]

I didn't, but it was obvious from the video that he wasn't coherent. It's now been confirmed that he was an alcoholic.

 

Elementary my dear Watson.

 

 

He was a harmless simpleton who occassionally "helped" sell the Standard, was a "friendly beggar" around City boozers,drunk too much & often slept rough.

 

Yes, the Police didnt know that & they were unlucky in that for a normal adult male the push would not have led to lasting damage

 

However if they had known what he was really like, they would have fitted him up for Jill Dando's murder instead.

[kelster]

Coming out of this badly yet again is the IPCC. At the Stockwell enquiry, they took what the police told them hook, line and sinker. Only very late on after log books been lost, notebooks been conferred upon and CCTV evidence went missing (contrary to what London transport said about working CCTV), did they cotton on that the police might be covering their arses.

 

Yet again, they took the official police statement that a man had just collapsed and they were attacked while helping him at face value. They then assigned the investigation to the very police force who were at the demo, job done. Again it took them a while to realise something that everyone else knows - the police lie. They are just way too close to be of any use at all.

[Fink]

A Met spokesman said last night that the officer identified himself to his team leader as “being potentially involved in the incident shown on the video footage”.

 

Potentially...

 

Perhaps hed pushed that many people that day that he couldnt quite remember if it was him or not.

[Kopite]

It was all downhill after Regatta De Blanc, but I do think calling them "Scum" is a bit harsh.

 

Owwww Message In A Bottle...

[kelster]

Saw the video from the second angle today and it appears to be far more damning. I've spoken about it with six members of my shift and a Sergeant. Collectively the opinion is that the Officer was out of order. It wasn't anywhere near as clear in the first video.

 

I've no problem with pushing to be fair, but when it's preceded by a baton strike and there was no period of waiting to see if it had the desired effect then its out of order.

 

I would not want to be that Officer right now.

 

So the baton strike in isolation would have been ok, but not followed by a push? What if the officer had waited 30 seconds and then followed up with the push, would that have been ok?

 

You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the police. You've stopped thinking about what is morally wrong, and what level of violence you think is ok as an officer. The sense of self-entitlement when it comes to violence conduct is palpable. At no time had the man ever presented any sort of threat, and if he had you can bet the police would have released eveidence of it by now.

 

What would have been the desired effect do you reckon? Maybe he should have collapsed on the first strike. Would have walking a bit faster after being assaulted worked for you? The whole thing was pretty much out of order the moment the officer decided he was going to launch what was in effect a cowardly attacked on a lone individual with the full backup of his mates behind him.

[Stu Monty]

If that's true about the guy being prosecuted for filming what happened then it really is a sad state of affairs. No doubt it will be under yet another liberty eroding law based upon some terror bullshit to protect those employed to crush shoots of democracy that might break out.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

 

Any sane person should dislike the police.

 

I've just told my Dad I hated him for the past 30 years. Thanks for advice.

 

Top tune.

[philyhamann]

Its illegal to video a police officer? Really? More ways to cover their own arse after another fuck up which leads to a death.

[rondeco]

So the baton strike in isolation would have been ok, but not followed by a push? What if the officer had waited 30 seconds and then followed up with the push, would that have been ok?

 

You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the police. You've stopped thinking about what is morally wrong, and what level of violence you think is ok as an officer. The sense of self-entitlement when it comes to violence conduct is palpable. At no time had the man ever presented any sort of threat, and if he had you can bet the police would have released eveidence of it by now.

 

What would have been the desired effect do you reckon? Maybe he should have collapsed on the first strike. Would have walking a bit faster after being assaulted worked for you? The whole thing was pretty much out of order the moment the officer decided he was going to launch what was in effect a cowardly attacked on a lone individual with the full backup of his mates behind him.

 

I disagree with a hell of a lot of this post. First off, you are presuming that the man had not been warned that if he didn't remove himself from the area, force would be used to have him comply with the direction to leave. More than likely he was warned. Why he didn't leave is something that needs to be answered but might never be.

 

There is a riot after happening in the area. Buildings have been damaged and people have been injured. The culprits are still in the area so the threat of more violence is still high. I think it is a fair assumption to presume that someone's refusal to comply with a direction to leave the area indicates a possiblity that they are a threat to the peace. Standard riot tactics are employed and the streets are cleared in a systematic manner. Batons are drawn due to the threat of violence and the violence that has occurred.

 

Anyone who impedes the clearance of the area leaves themselves open to the use of force to remove them. Whether that be pushing, striking or both. What has to happen now is to find out if the force used by the officer was proportionate to the desired effect. ie. remove the person from the area. You say that the sense of sense entitlement to the use of violence is palpable in Chris Royle? For me, you are interpreting the use of force as violence. Until the inquiry says whether the force was reasonable or not, I will hold my judgement.

[Stu Monty]

I don't need an inquiry to know if twatting a man walking away from you with his hands in his pockets it reasonable.

 

Why do people allow themselves to be conditioned into thinking it's fine for someone to do this if they feel you need moving somewhere else. I'll say where I'll go, thanks, and until I'm actually doing something wrong you'll fucking well live with it.

[Anubis]

And here is the law in all it's glory - s76 Counter Terrorism Act 2008 which I think came into force on the 16th Feb 2009....

 

Terrorist offences

 

76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc (1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—

“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc (1) A person commits an offence who—

(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,

(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii) a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) publishes or communicates any such information.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).

(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.

(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.

(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.

 

 

This is disgraceful. Presumably the police allege it is eliciting information if you film them. Are the public to have NO right to protect themselves?

[Anubis]

I don't need an inquiry to know if twatting a man walking away from you with his hands in his pockets it reasonable.

 

Why do people allow themselves to be conditioned into thinking it's fine for someone to do this if they feel you need moving somewhere else. I'll say where I'll go, thanks, and until I'm actually doing something wrong you'll fucking well live with it.

Spot on Monty.

[kelster]

I disagree with a hell of a lot of this post. First off, you are presuming that the man had not been warned that if he didn't remove himself from the area, force would be used to have him comply with the direction to leave. More than likely he was warned. Why he didn't leave is something that needs to be answered but might never be.

 

There is a riot after happening in the area. Buildings have been damaged and people have been injured. The culprits are still in the area so the threat of more violence is still high. I think it is a fair assumption to presume that someone's refusal to comply with a direction to leave the area indicates a possiblity that they are a threat to the peace. Standard riot tactics are employed and the streets are cleared in a systematic manner. Batons are drawn due to the threat of violence and the violence that has occurred.

 

Anyone who impedes the clearance of the area leaves themselves open to the use of force to remove them. Whether that be pushing, striking or both. What has to happen now is to find out if the force used by the officer was proportionate to the desired effect. ie. remove the person from the area. You say that the sense of sense entitlement to the use of violence is palpable in Chris Royle? For me, you are interpreting the use of force as violence. Until the inquiry says whether the force was reasonable or not, I will hold my judgement.

 

If he is impeding then arrest him. How much force would that have taken? The officer who had his face covered and had taken off his ID decided in the first instance to use violence. Even if the person had said something it is still not a proportionate response. You seems to be justifying violence in the case where absolutely none was offered. As I said before, it is the difference between a humane moral standpoint and what the police think they can get away with.

 

And why do you think there was violence? Cause the police were 'up for it' as they said well before the protests. The vast majority of people at the protest, as in most protests were peaceful. In fact the majority of the police are just trying to get along with it and have no intention of using violence. It is the minority of thugs who decide to take it to another level. And whether they be in uniform or in the crowd, they should be prosecuted to the absolute full extent.

[Stu Monty]

And why has he got his face covered and no ID in the first place?

 

Pretty obvious why: he's up for some rucking.

[Charles Penrose]

So the baton strike in isolation would have been ok, but not followed by a push? What if the officer had waited 30 seconds and then followed up with the push, would that have been ok?

 

You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the police. You've stopped thinking about what is morally wrong, and what level of violence you think is ok as an officer. The sense of self-entitlement when it comes to violence conduct is palpable. At no time had the man ever presented any sort of threat, and if he had you can bet the police would have released eveidence of it by now.

 

What would have been the desired effect do you reckon? Maybe he should have collapsed on the first strike. Would have walking a bit faster after being assaulted worked for you? The whole thing was pretty much out of order the moment the officer decided he was going to launch what was in effect a cowardly attacked on a lone individual with the full backup of his mates behind him.

 

 

Putting words into my mouth are you? Did I say the baton strike was ok? I really didn't. A push, in certain circumstances, is accepable and it is necessary. In these circumstances I don't know if it is either. The only thing that appears clear to me is that one certainly can't follow the other without looking as if it is gratuitous.

 

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that there is a time and a place for robust policing which although it may upset you includes pushing. As long as I can tell myself and the Courts that it is reasonable, proportionate and necessary than I'm happy with whatever I am required to do. Infact use of force Policies through Police forces nationwide specifically mention these three justifications.

 

This appears to be a Police Officer who acted outside of both his powers and the law. If it is as cut and dried as it now appears to be, then I hope he loses his job.

 

To me was it reasonable? No it wasn't because the man, at worst, appears to be passively obstructive. There should have been no baton striking, and pushing as he walks away achieved nothing positive.

 

Was it proportionate? No, the man presented no immediate threat and was walking away from the scene.

 

Was it necessary? No, he was walking away albeit slowly, and the video clearly shows Officer's 'milling around' rather than an engaging in running lines as is a prescribed PSU deployment tactic when the shit really hits the fan.

 

You need to seperate 'violence' from 'force' as they are truly different in every sense of the word. For the record I have never drawn my baton, never struck anyone with it or even CS Sprayed someone. I'd suggest you get off your moral highground and keep quiet, as you really haven't got the first clue about my competence or morality as a Police Officer or a person.

 

I'd be interested in how you'd suggest I could be any fairer or more impartial than that.

[kelster]

I've no problem with pushing to be fair, but when it's preceded by a baton strike and there was no period of waiting to see if it had the desired effect then its out of order.

 

This bit says you were ok with the baton strike. Your only concern is that the officer didn't wait to see if it was effective.

 

If you wanted to be more clear about not being ok with it you could of perhaps written that it was out of order altogether or unneccesary. You only said it was wrong cause he hadn't waited.