G20 demonstrations

Cuff me, beat me then extend my truncheon

@horatio

Right, I see where you're coming from. You're twisting my words to fit your viewpoint. I didn't say Police officers should never be convicted for misconduct, you jumped that conclusion yourself. And you have clearly quoted me out of context. I said "If this case would have gone through and the police officer had been prosecuted, every dickhead with a gripe ...." If this case. We're not talking about a Rodney King style beating here are we. Just to re-iterate: I'm not sure that policing at protest will improve if 50% of the protesters are journalists filming everyone's movement at all time. I believe this could encourage the crowd to goad the police, especially in tense, difficult situations, which may lead to an increase in police violence. The more policemen that are convicted (for what I believe to be quite small things like this) the less the police will be respected and feared.

I don't think I'm twisting your words. If I am, I apologize. Here's where I'm coming from.

I ignored the "if" because it's irrelevant (ah! that argument again!). I'm arguing against your position that comes after - the part that starts with "every." That is, that public trials and convictions of police officers is a bad thing because it results in the undermining of the police.

Let's break down your argument.

"On a wider level, if this would have gone through and the police officer had been prosecuted, then every dickhead with a gripe against any policeman would feel encouraged to take any officer to court for misconduct. It would have seriously undermined their authority"

I see three parts to what you said:

A) if this would have gone through and the police officer had been prosecuted, then B) every dickhead with a gripe against any policeman would feel encouraged to take any officer to court for misconduct. C) It would have seriously undermined their authority.

That is, you are arguing/argued that A could have caused B, and you think B is bad because of C. Yes?

I am arguing that B is not bad. A doesn't matter (the "if" statement), because B is not bad. In fact, what you argued for instead (internal investigations) is much worse than B.

found in the dinning room

Is that next to the livving room?

@horatio

Please, you're incorrect in seeing A as irrelevant. If the circumstances were different, I might certainly have said that the trial should be open and public. The 'if this case' part of my statement is quite crucial. If incidents like these lead to convictions for policemen, and the end of their careers, it could very easily open the floodgates for future allegations against policemen who, in any other circumstance, would just be doing their job, something made increasingly difficult by the prevalence of amateur cameramen, who are looking to sell their tape to news organisations., and protesters, who think because the eyes of the world are trained on them, they can get away with more confrontational behaviour.

I am arguing that B is not bad. A doesn't matter (the "if" statement), because B is not bad. In fact, what you argued for instead (internal investigations) is much worse than B.

I do not think that prosecuting police officers should be a walk in the park, certainly not as easy as Ms Fisher had it. There were probably hundreds of similar incidents on April 1. Do you think they should all the officers involved should be taken publicly tried for professional misconduct, or would you not rather have them internally disciplined, and then possibly have regulations modified for policing at future protests.

I read that Nicola Fisher was detained by the Police in Bangkok for trying to smuggle out 3 kgs of heroin.

I have to conclude you are a fucking moron.

Excellent, you choose to completely ignore the points I have made and attack me personally.

The art of debating is not dead!

She got whacked on the legs a few times, big fucking deal. She played with fire and she got burnt. The image I posted was only to try and put things in perspective, I know she didn't murder anyone but the idea behind it is exactly the same. People see a video on youtube and cry "Police brutality" without properly knowing or understanding the situation and hearing both sides of the story.

Exactly,

Get a grip. Its easy to play keyboard warrior and pass judgement on a situation you know nothing about.

The police are allowed to use reasonable force to diffuse a situation, personally I believe In this case reasonable force would have been removing the unwashed scrounger from the gene pool, but I guess you cant have everything :(

flxhed

who?

So, it was just a little whack in the face, and some beating of the legs. Not that bad compared to what's happened to other people. She should man up, yeah?

Pretty much. Perhaps instead of all this moaning she should just grow a spine and crack on.

why do you think she is clearly a bit of a nut. when i watch that video i see her telling the policeman to stop being so aggresive,.

You are blind/suffer from worse brain damage than I originally thought?

Jesus, what a fuckwit.

Excellent, you choose to completely ignore the points I have made and attack me personally.

..............

You are blind/suffer from worse brain damage than I originally thought?

I haven't been following this debate but I must say, I was impressed by this masterly display of self damnation contained within one post. The dangers of multi quoting.

[The split infinitive is just icing on the cake.]

@horatio

Please, you're incorrect in seeing A as irrelevant. If the circumstances were different, I might certainly have said that the trial should be open and public. The 'if this case' part of my statement is quite crucial. If incidents like these lead to convictions for policemen, and the end of their careers, it could very easily open the floodgates for future allegations against policemen who, in any other circumstance, would just be doing their job, something made increasingly difficult by the prevalence of amateur cameramen, who are looking to sell their tape to news organisations., and protesters, who think because the eyes of the world are trained on them, they can get away with more confrontational behaviour.

I am arguing that B is not bad. A doesn't matter (the "if" statement), because B is not bad. In fact, what you argued for instead (internal investigations) is much worse than B.

I do not think that prosecuting police officers should be a walk in the park, certainly not as easy as Ms Fisher had it. There were probably hundreds of similar incidents on April 1. Do you think they should all the officers involved should be taken publicly tried for professional misconduct, or would you not rather have them internally disciplined, and then possibly have regulations modified for policing at future protests.

You're just repeating yourself and/or missing the point (who cares about false allegations against policemen? This is a by-product of the legal system. I can make any allegation I want. If it's complete BS, it will be [most likely] found out to be just that. As you have already said, if they haven't done anything wrong what do they have to hide? [paraphrase]).

Anyway, I'm done. This has been an exercise of futility - I don't recall you responding to any substantive issues, only (poorly) arguing against the last thing someone has said. I'm out.

I haven't been following this debate but I must say, I was impressed by this masterly display of self damnation contained within one post. The dangers of multi quoting.

[The split infinitive is just icing on the cake.]

You should have been. There's some serious talent here - you could probably recruit some of these bad boys.

(btw, congrats on the promotion. I don't remember where I read you mention it, so I'll say it here).

I haven't been following this debate but I must say, I was impressed by this masterly display of self damnation contained within one post. The dangers of multi quoting.

Ah yes, you've got me there :(

But you see the post I quoted really did raise the blood pressure.

No one seems to have responded to my post about why I feel it was a sensible/justifiable response (although the slap was a bit of an error..) I guess everyone would rather remain on board the outrage bus.

I am not respnding because i have said everything that i feel about the situation, multiple times, CBA to go around in circles with you any more

I'm just interested to know what you think he should have done instead/what you would have done.

edit: unless you have mentioned this already? If so I havent seen the post.

Tazered her face then let the alsatians loose on her

what you would have done.

Told her it was her fault that I whacked her and to make me some breakfast........

I'm just interested to know what you think he should have done instead/what you would have done.

edit: unless you have mentioned this already? If so I havent seen the post.

Seeing as i have not had training in crowd control unlike him i am not sure what the standard procedure is, but normally in those circusmtance they could have just ignored her, or pushed her back.

no charges... no surprise

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-police-not-charged

http://www.lfgss.com/thread47604.html

no charges... no surprise

Came here to link that article.

As a wise-man once said, fuck the police.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/25/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-freddy-patel

Just read this story on the BBC Website :

Wiltshire policeman cleared of assault on appeal

This all happened a few weeks ago, quite a prominent news story.

Now, the thing is, we can all see the CCTV footage. Furthermore, this was the statement, after the first conviction from Wiltshere Police :

Wiltshire Police statement on cell attack case

How in the name of Christ has this copper won his appeal?

It's like the Ian Tomlinson case all over again. Can anyone offer any rational explanation?

its Wiltshire?

G20 PC Faces misconduct hearing

"The CPS decided not to press criminal charges as there was "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about the cause of death, which led to three post-mortem examinations being conducted on Mr Tomlinson.
The first examination by Dr Freddy Patel found he died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease.
The second pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, found he died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver.
The third examination agreed with the findings of the second test. It was conducted on behalf of the officer.
Dr Patel was earlier this month suspended for three months by the General Medical Council after concerns over his post-mortem examination."

Police lied to MPs about plain clothes officers in the crowd at the G20 protests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/19/plain-clothes-metropolitan-police-g20

I'm sure there's a 'Protest/Riots/Demonstration/Cuts/Students' thread thingy but can't find it

Anyways, 6 days to go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaBvKE-gILM&feature=player_embedded