Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what do you think the reaction is to the photos of policemen beating up protecters? revulsion or 'serves them right'?
the fact that the guy who died had nothing to do with the protests just makes people pretty pissed off at both parties - but mainly the police.
I don't know anyone who's had good experiences with policemen (ooh, matron). Like bus drivers and traffic wardens, they've developed a really bad reputation - at least where I'm from.
but I'm not sure whether that's because of a general culture where we all tend not to like authority figures much.
but I also thought it was pretty horrifying the way that woman was (or appeared to be) screaming in his face beforehand. It obviously does not condone violence but nobody whatever their profession, should have to go about their jobs with people screaming abuse at them. And similarly nobody should be doing around screaming abuse at people whatever their profession. I was horrified by both parties really.
but mostly not giving a shit
also, id hardly call that a violent police reaction. id call the french police rough. id call the russian police violent.
and there's been an outcry/action from the Met in both cases. Who knows whether charges'll be brought but so far it's actually a pretty good advert for the police's unwillingness to accept violent behaviour from its officers.
trouble is though the investigations that the met are doing are all internal (thus far) so they're only really getting one side of the story..
that the police are above the law that is pretty disgraceful.
If I went upto someone in a crowd and hit them in the face, then battoned them when they came back, I'd be arrested for assault. And it's no use saying "they said rude things to me" like you could do when you were a little kid in the playground - heck I didn't even get away with it then. That policeman should be prosecuted as if he were a normal member of the public.
As for the pushing of that Iain Tomlinson guy...the news that it might take 3 years for an inquiry to report it's findings...What?!?! Stinks of them trying to cover it up... That police officer could be found guilty of manslaughter, and again with the above...if anyone else had done it...
hm. obviously i am not keen on the way that the police appear to have behaved..
at the same time the general 'fuck the pigs' attitude is pretty annoying and unhelpful i think
it just seems to take a picture of some protestors get batoned round the head by a cop wearing a ski-mask with his ID number removed for people to remember.
policing has obviously got better in the UK. the 70's/80's were horrific for police brutality, because nothing ever got followed up.
and other countries have it far worse off.
that happened twice? out of 4,000 police officers there? now, im no mathematician, but id say that 2/4,000 /=/ 90/100
you heard about it twice. there are pictures and videos that show it happened more than twice.
you can search flickr and see hundreds of pictures of police officers with removed number tags wielding batons. i'm not going to do it for you.
neither of us dispute it happened twice. he just seems to think it ONLY happened twice.
you're talking sense
you mean his opinions conform with your own
his opinion is going to be far more accurate than yours?
People there could talk subjectively about what they saw but would in a no more objective position to say what happened overall.
this could go on forever.
if people are backing what the police did, then they can just say it and stop beating around the bush.
this guy obviously thinks getting hit with batons is fairplay if you're a "student nobhead".
i couldn't even give a shit about protesting, it's not something i'd ever do, but if people want to do it, then they should be able to without being harmed by cunts that blatantly know what they're doing, as they have gone to lengths to disguise their indentities.
I know you are not stupid enough to think that the two times that it has been caught on camera (and the footage able to be shown) are not the only times it happened. I am sure that there are also assaults the other way.
I think the problem is that people want to take sides and then they end up generalising....which has an element of truth to it...but when applied when the stakes are ramped up, ends up with relative innocents getting hit.....the issue here is really that the police units on the whole seem to sometimes be able to assume that if they arrest a bunch of protestors they must have been violent, and they might bne arrested with violenty resisting...which demonstrates an assumption that the whole other side is tarred with the same brush....thus it is hardly unequal if the disparate elements of protestors take the attitude that the police are 'all the same' specially as they all wear the same uniform....and specially as any sargeant could have disciplined the pc without the id displayed and sent him away (suspecting thaty he might be 'too enthusiastic') It does become a 'them and us' situation to a degree with both sides when they are actually tusselling....this being moderated by there being those that would not advocate violence (on both sides) and those that are 'well up for it'
The police should have stricter measures applied to their behaviour, because they are meant to be disciplined and controlled.....they get paid to be so.....by us and therefore we would wish to see that they exercisze their discipline.
However the police have improved enormously, since say, the 70's, and appear to be preferable to many/most other countries police force.
Since they appear to be on the right track it might not be the best idea to overhaul completely (and possibly cause it to deteriorate and have a reactionary backlash) unless we could be assured of being able to implement improvements properly......this sort of policing is different to others....it has a political element and thus the police are asked to be 'minders' to keep the public from expressing their anger at the hidden and protected 'objects of their anger'
In these circumstances there is never going to be a good outcome.
It is partly the plans to 'contain and frustrate and make impotent and distance any protest from making an impact....In france protestors are allowed to make a large impact by their protest (well certain types of protestors....like vocationally based protests (farmers/fishermen/lorry drivers)...these seem ot be tolerated and allowed to have full impact by the french police....they can clamp down far heavier on other types)
i did say that it happened twice
but if youd rather call me names, off with ya. ill just stick with my opinion that the people protesting and their supporters are students
quite a few were the sort you see at every protest, not necessarily students.
*cough* dreadlocks *cough*
and quite a number of elderly people as well.
ive given up with flickr, and just ised google image
for every one of these
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5977196,00.jpg , theres a
but then you see
and i think 'oh you student nobheads'
but i saw none of those people...
apolitical? right wing statist? firm new labour supporter to the point where nothing can go wrong when they are in power?
is that a belief?
i think they call it 'fascism'... *safety wink thingy*
however, since coming to university ive tidied up my hair, to diferntiate myself from the hoards of scruffy weekend socialists
what youre doing is taking things to a grossly simplified level, which i assume is the kind of thing youd get upset about when done to you
the centre right part will probably either get stronger or wither away, depending on if i can leave ireland
what part of ireland?
i think we have different interpretations of authoritarian.
socialist refers to an left wing economic system, no?
and i'm sure we do. i'm a libertarian socialist.
Can you explain how that works in practice?
Surely the defining quality of socialism is a belief the needs of society as a whole must be put towards the needs of the individual?
And surely the defining quality of libertarianism is that the freedom of the individual must be puts before the needs of society?
I'm obviously simplifying a lot here but even so I just can't see how you can reconcile the two into a coherent philosophy.
You won't because you can't.
if i wanted to i could just post this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
and be done with it. i've promised to make a personal comment reconciling the two philosophies.
you know when you know you're right...?
It makes a coherent sense but is another one of these very nice in theory/absolute unworkable in reality philosophies which is a perfectly nice thing to believe in, should you choose so, but only remains defensible as a political system so long as it doesn't actually take place, in which case it would immediately become clear how flawed it is. The two defences to the criticism's on that page don't wash at all.
And the criticism doesn't even touch on the more basic (and ultimately fatal) point that libertarian socialism seems to stake itself entirely on the basis that all people within the libertarian socialist system will want to be libertarian socialists - it doesn't seem to have a means for dealing with selfish and self-serving behaviour within a libertarian socialist society.
obviously the belief assumes that all humans are kind, selfless beings, something that sadly isn't true. however i don't believe that selfishness /is/ a natural human attribute (not that it is necessarily /unnatural/), but something that arises from the society we are brought up in. (I'm stating the obvious here, but it leads on to another fatal flaw in the philosophy).
So changes must be made for society to become more egalitarian, but it would be almost impossible to do that without being completely totalitarian. for one, most newspapers and magazines would have to go (i wouldn't be complaining if the Sun and Daily Mail were banned, mind), then certain books would be destroyed, then you'd have to start censoring Charles Darwin, etc because somebody /could/ start using his theories to justify a society based on competition. it would be awful.
i a much older and wiser person how we could work around this (i was saying i was in favour of banning the sun newspaper for the ignorance it spreads, he said nothing should be banned..) and he said the answer is to /become/ the media. which is all well and good but how is a zine going to challenge the biggest selling newspaper in the country?
so yeah, it's not very practical, but i believe it. i share what i have, i help who i can, i have ideas /influenced/ by libertarian socialism that may be practical, and i think that's the only way one who believes such things can go about it.
libertarian refers to my stance on personal liberty. socialist refers to my economic beliefs. it's not in any way an oxymoron like many people now believe. it's basically an umbrella term for anarchism and schools of communism that aren't authoritarian.
That reply was in completely the wrong place. Silly forum.
can't be arsed typing the body again. Point still stands though.
but the protesters themselves, who have no agenda at all, are being completely honest?
and ive been searching flickr for photos of police brutality there. surprisingly, not finding any
so you're saying throughout the G20 protests, these were the only two cases that actually happened?
and several sets of photo's and videos say there is a tiny chance the bbc could have possibly missed a lot of the police trouble.
but given the number of officers there there were bound to be a number of arseholes. I just don't think that necessarily extrapolates to approved police brutality in the way some think.
it's kind of accepted as OK that there are 'a number of assholes,' like it's a pub football team or something? Thing is, these people's job is to uphold the law. That's it. Nothing else.
So if any single police officer is breaking the law, especially when he's doing so in front of colleagues, it's completely unacceptable.
If the Police are willing to turn a blind eye to me slapping a Police officer because he was getting on my tits, then I wouldn't mind. But it's their belief that it's one rule for them, another for everyone else that gets on my nerves.
And the fact that we all know it goes on, but the police will only do anything about it when somebody catches it on camera, is even worse.
Just that I think it'd be unfair to extrapolate the fact that some police are brutal arseholes into a condemnation of the Police service as a whole.
I mean clearly at the same time you're right that a single officer breaking the law is unacceptable but there almost seems to be this belief that being a police officer in itself means you probably are a violent thug who bends the rules to suit yourself. Which probably isn't fair on most police officers.
i've found that even the fairest coverage of the event hasn't actually been all that accurate.
as soon as we reached the square by the bank of england the police closed in and 'kettled' us. the coverage has suggested that it was after the windows of rbs were broken, and this has made the use of kettling seem justifiable to many people. the windows of rbs were broken about an hour after we were initially kettled in, i know this because my friend watching it on television rang me when the windows were broken. from where i was at the time there was no sign of unrest.
about an hour after that people began to get worried, but there was no violence i could see. none by the police, none by protesters. however a huge amount of people gathered at one of the police lines and somehow it broke. i don't know whether the police decided to let people get out while they could, or whether the protesters broke the line (if they did it would /surely/ have been mentioned on the news, which it wasn't), but a good 300 people got out. at one point i heard a young man say to a police officer calling in re-enforcement "we just want to leave peacefully", to which the police officer replied with a chuckle "well get out while you can!" which i think is a very strange attitude... but i'm not complaining.
compared to many other countries the police weren't violent, that has to be said, but that doesn't make it justifiable.
Which is quite disgusting in its own way, the fact that it isn't even soliciting much of an opinion.
For your comment theguywithnousername:
"but I also thought it was pretty horrifying the way that woman was (or appeared to be) screaming in his face beforehand"
While its not something I condone it is a job where you have to expect confrontation, and be trained in how to react in a sensible manner.
What would have been the sensible way to react in that particular situation?
or attempting to communicate with the person, or asking somebody around them for help.
are you sure it's threats and abuse or are you assuming?
I'm also going to add that I've never ever seen anyone scream into someone's face "It's a lovely day. I hope your wife and kids are well." for example.
Of course the fact I've answered your question must not deflect from the fact you've not answered mine.
So have you ever tried to communicate with or walkaway someone screaming at and threatening you?
The police are trained to deal with people like that. It doesn't involve walking away or breaking their codes of conduct, or indeed the law.
But ultimately they're humans and, as with any job, some crack under the pressure. Sadly, with all the training in the world, sometimes people fuck up.
What my question had to do with anything is that communicating with someone and/or walking away are not actually that simple when somebody is screaming in your face. I think finkbrau is somewhat naive about the reality of the situation.
As long as, on a Friday night, if somebody pisses me off and I thump him in the face in full view of the Police, they'll say 'it's alright, he was being a bit annoying, you go on your way...'
If I'm not allowed to do it, why the fuck should they be allowed?
I'm not saying the police officer shouldn't face disciplinary action. I'm not saying he shouldn't be sacked. I'm not saying he shouldn't be prosecuted for assault.
All I'm saying is that these people are humans and it is understandable, in that circumstance, how you can fuck up. Of course understanding the fuck-up doesn't excuse the fuck-up but I think an ordinary sane well-adjusted person can lash out in those circumstances - it's not necessarily the reaction of a mindless thug in the way tht some people suggest.
FREE NELSON MANDELA!
a few times. being a sane, rational, functioning member of society i walked away to safety. i had no weapons or protective clothing like the cop in the video, i was not surrounded by people like he was, and i have never had training in how to deal with such situations, but i dealt with them without resorting to violence.
but I don't necessarily think that means it's fair to say resorting to violence is not sane or rational. It's not ideal behaviour but it's not "insane" behaviour either. I don't think its that healthy to normalise your own behaviour and abnormalise those who react differently to you.
...the policeman should have walked away or asked for help?
this man could also treat his wife like that, should she decide to have a go at him.
The person's mum?
The police are trained to restrain threatening and violent people. If they can't enforce the law and have to walk away, then I don't know who can.
the policeman's only two choices weren't "walk away" or "smack her in the face." Smacking someone isn't even a method of restraint, it's an aggressive attack. He should have followed his training and restrained her in a safe and appropriate manner.
I don't think it's write that the cop beat someone up, but walking away from a problem isn't something a lawman should do. That's why I said "The police are trained to restrain threatening and violent people". Bish, bash, bosh not required.
But police/ armed forces are trained and actually expected to deal with far worse than getting shouted at, if they lose it at that then it does not bode well for more serious situations.
The police are meant to react in a calm and controlled manner at all times, be it, protests, riots or shootings. I'm not saying it is an easy job. Bus drivers, barmen, waiters etc getting screamed at in the face may have legitimate cause to complain that that is outside their remit, but a policeman knowing that he is going to be policing the G20 summit must surely be mentally prepared for the potential of abuse.
The cop in question was from the Territorial Support Group. They SPECIALISE IN POLICING RIOTS. If he can't deal with a bit of shouting, he should be sacked just for not being able to do his job, let alone for assaulting someone.
I'm just saying it's pretty sad and depressing how somebody (and especially somebody who, as they were at a political protest, presumably believes themselves to have some sort of ethical code) can think it's acceptable to behave so shittily to another human being.
I'm certainly not saying that's a defence for the officer but the bottom line is it's not very pleasant. I work in a job where I'm trained to expect confrontation and react in a sensible manner, and have successfully managed not to punch people shouting abuse and threats at me before, but it doesn't change how horrible it is to be trying to go about your job and having people shouting threats and abuse at you.
I mean the guy clearly didn't handle the situation well and as a result of what's happened he may (and, in my view, probably should) lose his job. And clearly that's right because the police aren't above the law and violence from them cannot be accepted. But, even if he should have managed to handle the pressure and didn't, even if he gets what he deserves as a result of it, he's still a human being and it's quite a horrible thing all round.
but can you also aknowledge the psychological pressure that the protesters are under facing armed police. it's a really tense, frightening situation and it brings out the worst in people, but it could be avoided if the people in authority weren't so hostile and intimidating.
I'd disagree that it simply the people in authority being less hostile and intimidating in itself would solve it.
Ultimately the problem comes from two fundamental assumptions:
a) The police expect at least some of the protesters to be hostile and intimidating and so at least some of them are are hostile and intimidating in response to a perceived threat.
b) The protesters expect at least some of the police to be hostile and intimidating and so at least some of them are hostile and intimidating in response to a perceived threat.
Basically if both sides were less mistrustful of each other and were less hostile and intimidating as a response the situation could be avoided but I don't think it comes down to the police alone.
but you always equalise the two groups and i don't think thats fair. the police are professionals who are hired to protect both the public, the protestors and the right to protest, and i think the last part of that has been lost completely.
yes the antagonism between the two groups aggravtes the situation, but the police are the proactive group within the dynamic and they're the one's with the grestest sense of responsibility. surely the burden to act responsibly is on them.
in the power relationship the police all have sticks, the violent protesters arm themselves with weapons or a will to violence, and the only thing that legitimate protesters have is the right to be there.
i agree with the vast majority of the points you make, but the power relationship in this situation is seriously inbalanced and you never address that.
But the police did a pretty good job, and the people 'attacked' certainly weren't being in the least bit helpful. I don't think protests like those should be allowed to take part in the first place, so I can't really blame police in being kinda heavy-handed with them. Of course, that's just going to make the freaks even worse and more protesty. I don't have a problem with the officers in question being fired, but everyone making a couple of incidents into 'the state of our police force' is pretty moronic. The police in our country do a pretty damn good job of things.
is that the few people i could persuade to come on a protest with me in the past are now nervous as hell about going ever again. they don't want to find themselves locked in a circle for 3-7 hours as result, let alone the possibility of facing violence.
anyone else finding this? anyone else worried by it?
they must have put many, many first time protesters off protesting...
The majority of the people who went on that protest will have LOVED this. Someone gets "killed" (ha) by police at their protest. See? We live in an evil dictatorship! More marches! More protests! We're so oppressed! Of course, outwardly they're all "police brutality, so sad, how could something like this happen?", but don't believe for one moment that's what most of them are thinking. Trouble like this is what they actually go on those protests trying to achieve, you know, force sympathy, force validity. It's pathetic.
The marches for "justice" for Iain Tomlinson actually sickened me. The way that people can take a family's grief and make political capital out of it is truly horrifying.
you can be really, really right about stuff. Like right now. That kind of thing is just the lowest. You just know how smug they were all feeling during that.
and neither am i, or anyone discussing it.
Kinda a waste...
And I quite clearly am right.
what your saying would go down very well if you were having tea with Thatcher or something, i'm sure she'd think you were "really, really right".
how many people actually even turned up at that?
and given the IPCC's abysmal track record (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/25/police.law1) it seems to me there very clearly IS a need to bring as much pressure to bear on the police and IPCC as possible to ensure a just outcome.
I'm just saying that isn't why they're doing it.
do you really believe the 'majority' of people believe this? what possible grounds do you have for this hysterical analysis?
Well I don't think it gets any more presumptuous than this. The irreconcilable problem here is that you don't believe other people can feel something that you don't; that the only reason for people behaving the way that they do is for the reasons that you've suggested.
So what you've done is create a charicature of a 'protester;' a straw man for you to pin a load of false quotes to and set alight. The worst kind of pop psychology to use in an argument.
the police are an organised force with guidelines and rules. An individual officer can be benchmarked against what they claim to be and do for the public good.
they occupy a position of trust and have a responsibility not to abuse it.
then id be off like a shot.
fuck, id bring homemade explosives if it was srs.
but it wasnt. the only people itll have deterred were the people who dont care, who were going for a day out.
id gladly be kettled and face a police baton for something thats important, rather than general 'fuck the system yeah!'
If a real, Russian-esque revolution rises up in Britain, something that would threaten my way of life, then I'd be ready with the Molotov cocktails and a bandana 'round my face.
the economic crisis?
but protesting will do fuck all good. if anything its detrimental to the whole thing, what with the worlds leaders coming together to solve it, rather than a pic i posted up there, with some students holding up a banner saying 'capitalism sucks'
I seriously fucking hope i clicked away from that quickly enough as one of my colleagues walked in just as it came up.
It's an old picture, the one of the guy in a basque and suspenders with his dick in the exhaust pipe of a car.
Use your powers for good!
Thank fuck no-one is in here this early...
"fuck a car.jpg"
Really...I'm overseas and I posted that around 10 here. I just assumed...yknow...nightshift...
now that she has employed Max Clifford to sell her story
showing the progression of her bruising
"my baton hell"
the daily star? i can hardly see it..
the guardian's led the way in coverage of this, but i can't really see them going down this route.
sounds like tiananmen square all over again.
the fact that they're even getting called up on it/punished shows how amazingly lucky we are in the UK.
any misgivings about the police i have are just a general authority figure thing combined with the knowledge that there are a lot of idiots in the world and inevitably some of those will become policemen and have power over people. every policeman i've actually spoken to has been polite and helpful, but then again i'm normally asking for directions, not screaming irrationally in their face.
fucking hell, how low can you go..
I'm pretty sure if there was any comparison at all to the Taliban she wouldn't be allowed to sell her story to a national newspaper.
if this their way of switching public sympathy against her: she is clearly a victin here, and by making the talban quote so prominent, they are making her look like the bad person.
They just like a juicy quote.
It's got bugger-all to do with an agenda or switching public sympathy.
And if she's not the "bad person" in all this, she sure as hell isn't the good person either. She was screaming abuse for fuck's sake. That doesn't excuse the violence but it doesn't make her seem a very nice person.
what an utter fucking bellend.
Can see everyone here turning that down. oh yes.
on the 2nd (as far as i can tell) when she was hit by the police, and if the same had happened to me, i DEFINITELY wouldn't have sold my 'story' to richard desmond. or anyone else.