Police using choke holds on women.

[ewerk 26964]

Yes, of course they should, so long as it is legal (which it is).

 

And then if it does turn violent you get to have a go at the cops for neglecting their duties.

[Fop 1]

This thread just needs a tazering for a full house.

 

He just got a bit over excited, and had a bad day, no harm done.

 

 

 

Yes, of course they should, so long as it is legal (which it is).

 

And then if it does turn violent you get to have a go at the cops for neglecting their duties.

 

So you're now suggesting all demonstrations are brutally put down just in case they may turn violent? Ayatollah Ewok, Fop presumes?

[ewerk 26964]

Nope, just think it's best to keep an eye on them. If we could always trust people to do the right thing then there would be no need for a police force.

Edited June 22, 2009 by ewerk

[The Fish 9289]

The police choose that job (and they are quite capable of showing restraint in the face of being hit on the head with poles and having metal fencing thrown at them when political needs suit ), it's like saying a teacher that gets sick of unruly kids and starts beating them is just stressed and should be left to get on with it.

 

 

No, it's nothing like that.

 

I think though, there is a systemic lack of respect in England, marry that with a very vocal section of society who fail to see that and you'll get lop-sided policing.

 

I'll bet every penny in my pocket against all the ones in yours, that Police would much rather be solving crimes and bringing justice, but instead they're tip-toeing around protests and answering media fuelled furore.

 

Yes they should be accountable for the failings, but they should be congratulated for their good works, which I fully believe out weigh these mistakes.

[snakehips 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/vide...gsnorth-arrests

 

 

Yorkshire police at it again.

 

 

Two female protesters who challenged police officers for not displaying their badge numbers were bundled to the ground, arrested and held in prison for four days, according to an official complaint lodged today.

 

The incident was caught on camera, and footage shows officers standing on the women's feet and applying pressure to their necks immediately after the women attempted to photograph a fellow officer who had refused to give his badge number.

 

The images are likely to fuel concern over the policing of protests, which is already subject to a review by the national police inspectorate and two parliamentary inquiries after the G20 demonstrations and the death of Ian Tomlinson.

 

Val Swain, 43, and Emily Apple, 33, both mothers with young children, believe they were deliberately targeted for arrest at last year's climate camp demonstration in Kent because they campaign for Fit Watch, a protest group that opposes police surveillance at demonstrations.

 

The pair were remanded to a women's prison for four days and released only after the demonstration against the Kingsnorth power station had finished. They believe their treatment is symptomatic of the increasingly aggressive approach taken by police at political demonstrations."

 

Fit Watch? But she's a minger.

[Happy Face 29]

Do they try to stop them taking pictures outside Finsbury Park mosque?

 

If they do, should they be arrested, choked into semi-unconsciousness, beaten, handcuffed, bound at the knees and ankles and imprisoned for 4 days for doing so?

 

No.

 

Then what is your point in this thread? (besides arbitrarily trying to disagree with Fop of course )

 

Should the police consult fit watch to decide which protests are worthy of being monitored?

 

Religious hate speech.

Animal rights protesters.

Anti-globalisation

 

etc.

 

Should the police be made to leave them all to get on with it?

Yes, of course they should, so long as it is legal (which it is).

 

The courts decide guilt, not the police.

 

You don't think the police should be left to get on with their entirely legal information gathering at any kind of protest whatsoever and should have a reactive approach to crime rather than pro-active.

 

I thing intelligence gathering is part of the job.

 

Also, if I saw a copper running after a suspected bag snatcher, I wouldn't hinder him and demand he give me his number. That would be obstruction.

[Guest alex]

The number should be visible anyway.

[NJS 4023]

Also, if I saw a copper running after a suspected bag snatcher, I wouldn't hinder him and demand he give me his number. That would be obstruction.

 

I think that what that was designed for but using it on people asking for a copper's ID when the copper wasn't doing anything is taking the piss.

[Park Life 71]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/vide...gsnorth-arrests

 

 

Yorkshire police at it again.

 

 

Two female protesters who challenged police officers for not displaying their badge numbers were bundled to the ground, arrested and held in prison for four days, according to an official complaint lodged today.

 

The incident was caught on camera, and footage shows officers standing on the women's feet and applying pressure to their necks immediately after the women attempted to photograph a fellow officer who had refused to give his badge number.

 

The images are likely to fuel concern over the policing of protests, which is already subject to a review by the national police inspectorate and two parliamentary inquiries after the G20 demonstrations and the death of Ian Tomlinson.

 

Val Swain, 43, and Emily Apple, 33, both mothers with young children, believe they were deliberately targeted for arrest at last year's climate camp demonstration in Kent because they campaign for Fit Watch, a protest group that opposes police surveillance at demonstrations.

 

The pair were remanded to a women's prison for four days and released only after the demonstration against the Kingsnorth power station had finished. They believe their treatment is symptomatic of the increasingly aggressive approach taken by police at political demonstrations."

 

Fit Watch? But she's a minger.

 

With added choke hold??

[Park Life 71]

Do they try to stop them taking pictures outside Finsbury Park mosque?

 

If they do, should they be arrested, choked into semi-unconsciousness, beaten, handcuffed, bound at the knees and ankles and imprisoned for 4 days for doing so?

 

No.

 

Then what is your point in this thread? (besides arbitrarily trying to disagree with Fop of course )

 

Should the police consult fit watch to decide which protests are worthy of being monitored?

 

Religious hate speech.

Animal rights protesters.

Anti-globalisation

 

etc.

 

Should the police be made to leave them all to get on with it?

Yes, of course they should, so long as it is legal (which it is).

 

The courts decide guilt, not the police.

 

You don't think the police should be left to get on with their entirely legal information gathering at any kind of protest whatsoever and should have a reactive approach to crime rather than pro-active.

 

I thing intelligence gathering is part of the job.

 

Also, if I saw a copper running after a suspected bag snatcher, I wouldn't hinder him and demand he give me his number. That would be obstruction.

 

Need a helicopter tazer deployed, cut out all the running.

 

 

Emily Apple relaxing in her back garden over the weekend.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

So you're now suggesting all demonstrations are brutally put down just in case they may turn violent? Ayatollah Ewok, Fop presumes?

 

But it has....

 

Campaigners from Greenpeace have boarded a ship delivering coal to the Kingsnorth power station in Kent.

 

The vessel was targeted as it sailed up the River Medway, with reports of people swimming in front of the ship to stop it docking.

 

The group, which is protesting against coal-fired power stations, climbed aboard from inflatable speedboats.

 

However, Kent Police said the vessel still managed to dock at Kingsnorth with some protesters still on board.

 

Six people have been arrested and four remain on the vessel, officers said.

 

Protesters are being held on suspicion of conspiring to commit criminal damage and having an unauthorised presence on a ship.

 

Earlier, officers also said a woman was being held on suspicion of endangering an aircraft.

 

'Dangerous environment'

 

Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beautridge said: "Clearly we are dealing with a difficult and potentially dangerous situation."

 

He said the situation had been contained and police were on board the ship.

 

He added: "This is a working coal-carrying vessel and clearly a dangerous environment for anyone who hasn't been trained to work in it.

 

"Therefore we are monitoring the protesters' actions from a safe distance in order to minimise the risk to life."

 

Mr Beautridge said a number of protesters' ribs (rigid inflatable boats) were in the water at Kingsnorth and were also being monitored from a safe distance.

 

The ship was boarded at about 2250 BST on Sunday as it approached the power station near Hoo.

 

A Greenpeace spokesman said campaigners were aiming to try to hold their position for as long as they could to prevent coal from being unloaded.

 

Emily Highmore, a spokeswoman for E.ON which owns Kingsnorth, said the campaigners' action was unacceptable.

 

She said: "We are trying to keep to business as usual as much as we possibly can, but the protesters are on the ship.

 

"What they have done in getting on to the ship was incredibly dangerous and clearly unacceptable from our point of view.

 

"We respect their right to protest but what they are doing is irresponsible and wrong, they have not got permission to be on-site."

 

She added: "We would like them to get off the boat. They are in a secure position, but the conditions are cold. Hopefully they will decide to come down of their own accord."

 

Ms Highmore said E.ON would be keeping a watching brief on the situation and reviewing whether it could unload the coal, but ample reserves were already on-site.

 

Climate camp

 

Earlier, campaigner Sarah Shoraka, 31, who climbed the ship's foremast, said: "There are nine of us on the ship.

 

"We have split into three teams of three, with one team on foremast, another on the funnel and the third hanging off the side.

 

"We are using walkie-talkies to stay in contact with each other and have enough food and water to last several days.

 

"We will stay as long as we can to stop the coal being unloaded."

 

In the early hours, police responded to reports of Greenpeace protesters boarding and attempting to impede the berthing of a coal vessel at the power station.

 

Officers said protesters used ribs and entered the water to board and prevent the coal vessel from making port.

 

Police said the campaigners were unsuccessful in their attempts and the coal vessel docked as planned.

 

Kingsnorth has been at the centre of a climate change row after E.ON announced plans to build a bigger coal-fired power station to replace the existing facility.

 

If built it would be the first new coal-powered plant in the UK for a quarter of a century.

 

An estimated 1,500 demonstrators attended a climate camp to protest against the plans last August.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/8112076.stm

 

[Fop 1]

The courts decide guilt, not the police.

 

So the police can just to whatever they want to whomever they want and it's all ok because the courts will decide if they were guilty of something or completely innocent when they were beaten for no reason.

 

Really Chris you do argue yourself into some truly moron corners.

 

 

 

You don't think the police should be left to get on with their entirely legal information gathering at any kind of protest whatsoever and should have a reactive approach to crime rather than pro-active.

 

I thing intelligence gathering is part of the job.

 

Also, if I saw a copper running after a suspected bag snatcher, I wouldn't hinder him and demand he give me his number. That would be obstruction.

 

 

So your idea of "pro-active" policing is for the police to choke into semi-unconciousness, beat and then handcuff and then tie at the knees and ankles as well?

 

All because they asked for an ID number (but might have been carrying a nuclear weapon and about to use it ).

 

 

Do you realise how stupid you sound?

[Happy Face 29]

The courts decide guilt, not the police.

 

So the police can just to whatever they want to whomever they want and it's all ok because the courts will decide if they were guilty of something or completely innocent when they were beaten for no reason.

 

Really Chris you do argue yourself into some truly moron corners.

 

 

 

You don't think the police should be left to get on with their entirely legal information gathering at any kind of protest whatsoever and should have a reactive approach to crime rather than pro-active.

 

I thing intelligence gathering is part of the job.

 

Also, if I saw a copper running after a suspected bag snatcher, I wouldn't hinder him and demand he give me his number. That would be obstruction.

 

 

So your idea of "pro-active" policing is for the police to choke into semi-unconciousness, beat and then handcuff and then tie at the knees and ankles as well?

 

All because they asked for an ID number (but might have been carrying a nuclear weapon and about to use it ).

 

 

Do you realise how stupid you sound?

 

You seem to be certain that the police brutality came before the obstruction by these women.

 

I condone neither, but these women were getting in the way of police doing their job at a protest that was likely to, and has, turned violent.

[Fop 1]

So you're now suggesting all demonstrations are brutally put down just in case they may turn violent? Ayatollah Ewok, Fop presumes?

 

But it has....

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/8112076.stm

 

 

 

No it hasn't can you not read either?

 

They have some people on a boat - clearly the should have shot them all.

 

But just imagine what they'd have done if they'd been asking for police ID number. :icon_lol:

 

 

 

(are you really trying to say that what the police did to those two women in that video was "justified" somehow, because Greenpeace got some people onto a coal boat? How on earth do you related those things? Really in not just arguing for the same of it world - how? )

[Happy Face 29]

So you're now suggesting all demonstrations are brutally put down just in case they may turn violent? Ayatollah Ewok, Fop presumes?

 

But it has....

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/8112076.stm

 

 

 

No it hasn't can you not read either?

 

They have some people on a boat - clearly the should have shot them all.

 

But just imagine what they'd have done if they'd been asking for police ID number. :icon_lol:

 

 

 

(are you really trying to say that what the police did to those two women in that video was "justified" somehow, because Greenpeace got some people onto a coal boat? How on earth do you related those things? Really in not just arguing for the same of it world - how? )

 

 

Smiley quotient going through the roof as his protesty pals let him down badly.

[Fop 1]

You seem to be certain that the police brutality came before the obstruction by these women.

 

I condone neither, but these women were getting in the way of police doing their job at a protest that was likely to, and has, turned violent.

 

 

Yes because Fop has actually watched the video, the sequence isn't edited.

 

They weren't getting in the way of anything, they were just taken out violently by police officers that didn't want to be identified (even though they are supposed to be).

 

 

 

 

There was no violence at all, except by the police.

[Fop 1]

Smiley quotient going through the roof as his protesty pals let him down badly.

Again where is the violence?

 

And again what does Greenpeace on a boat have to do with that video?

 

 

 

You've not answered one question in this thread. You're a coward, Chris.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Fop

[Happy Face 29]

Smiley quotient going through the roof as his protesty pals let him down badly.

Again where is the violence?

 

And again what does Greenpeace on a boat have to do with that video?

 

 

 

You've not answered one question in this thread. Coward.

 

It's the same protest at Kingsnorth dullard. The people these women were "protecting" from over zealous policing have conspired to commit criminal damage. Who'd have though the police might have reason to believe they'd attack private property?

 

 

Police were observing a potentially violent group of protesters.

A few silly women think it's out of order to do that and started making a nuisance of themselves.

They got removed so the police could get on (regretfully with too much force).

 

Get it?

Edited June 22, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

Out of interest Chris, under the nuances of "Holt's Law" () does it mean that Greenpeace members getting in the way of whaling vessels in the Antarctic directly mean that the UK police can just beat up whomever the like in the UK? Just in case?

 

 

It's certainly a strange one to get your head around. :icon_lol:

[Happy Face 29]

Out of interest Chris, under the nuances of "Holt's Law" () does it mean that Greenpeace members getting in the way of whaling vessels in the Antarctic directly mean that the UK police can just beat up whomever the like in the UK? Just in case?

 

 

It's certainly a strange one to get your head around. :icon_lol:

 

You'll have to explain that one to me. Sounds like total horseshit.

[Fop 1]

Smiley quotient going through the roof as his protesty pals let him down badly.

Again where is the violence?

 

And again what does Greenpeace on a boat have to do with that video?

 

 

 

You've not answered one question in this thread. Coward.

 

It's the same protest at Kingsnorth dullard. The people these women were "protecting" from over zealous policing have conspired to commit criminal damage. Who'd have though the police might have reason to believe they'd attack private property?

 

 

Police were observing a potentially violent group of protesters.

A few silly women think it's out of order to do that and started making a nuisance of themselves.

They got removed so the police could get on (regretfully with too much force).

 

Get it?

 

 

Ah so it's "criminal damage" now not a riot. Well done you've actually read it.

 

 

 

 

It's Greenpeace doing it not (as you said) Fit Watch so how are they the same people?

 

But again they (the women in the video) were doing nothing, just protesting (and you can quite legally protest in the UK, as much as Labour keep bringing legislation banning it bit by bit), not violently, not threateningly, just peacefully.

 

Asking questions isn't against the law in the UK either you know, as much as Holt's Law might want to make it so.

 

 

 

 

Fop does love how you manage (in desperately trying to disagree) to argue yourself into what is basically a fascist corner and then just don't seem to know how to get out of it.

[Fop 1]

Out of interest Chris, under the nuances of "Holt's Law" () does it mean that Greenpeace members getting in the way of whaling vessels in the Antarctic directly mean that the UK police can just beat up whomever the like in the UK? Just in case?

 

 

It's certainly a strange one to get your head around. :icon_lol:

 

You'll have to explain that one to me. Sounds like total horseshit.

 

Indeed Holt's Law does sound like total (fascist) horse-, but then it's your totalitarian convictions we're talking about here, not Fops.

[Fop 1]

The number should be visible anyway.

 

Aye, but they usually hide it (as in this case it seems) when they think they might be doing stuff they shouldn't (or wouldn't want to be) identified doing.

 

 

Which is the problem, if the police believe they are doing nothing wrong (or will be asked to do nothing wrong) then they would have no problem with being identifiable and linked to their actions.

 

 

Allowing anonymous policing is a very, very dangerous precedent and in their way those women are doing a service to British democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although all that is the background really to what is a pretty brutal assault, followed by being restrained in ways even Iraqi/Afghan PoW's are not and then held effectively beyond the law for 4 days.

[Happy Face 29]

Smiley quotient going through the roof as his protesty pals let him down badly.

Again where is the violence?

 

And again what does Greenpeace on a boat have to do with that video?

 

 

 

You've not answered one question in this thread. Coward.

 

It's the same protest at Kingsnorth dullard. The people these women were "protecting" from over zealous policing have conspired to commit criminal damage. Who'd have though the police might have reason to believe they'd attack private property?

 

 

Police were observing a potentially violent group of protesters.

A few silly women think it's out of order to do that and started making a nuisance of themselves.

They got removed so the police could get on (regretfully with too much force).

 

Get it?

 

 

Ah so it's "criminal damage" now not a riot. Well done you've actually read it.

 

 

 

 

It's Greenpeace doing it not (as you said) Fit Watch so how are they the same people?

 

But again they (the women in the video) were doing nothing, just protesting (and you can quite legally protest in the UK, as much as Labour keep bringing legislation banning it bit by bit), not violently, not threateningly, just peacefully.

 

Asking questions isn't against the law in the UK either you know, as much as Holt's Law might want to make it so.

 

 

 

 

Fop does love how you manage (in desperately trying to disagree) to argue yourself into what is basically a fascist corner and then just don't seem to know how to get out of it.

 

You'll notice in my post that I distinguish between the two?

 

I hardly ever disagree with you Fop darling. You rarely state an opinion.

 

Which of these statements is true:

 

a) Policing a protest in any way is wrong

b) filming protesters for any reason is wrong

c) arresting someone whose sole purpose is to hinder the effective policing of a protest is wrong

d) Using excessive force to make an arrest is wrong

 

I'd go for d. If you think any of the others, then why?

Edited June 22, 2009 by Happy Face

[ewerk 26964]

So you're now suggesting all demonstrations are brutally put down just in case they may turn violent? Ayatollah Ewok, Fop presumes?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7542592.stm