PDA

View Full Version : the cops



josef k.
23-04-2009, 05:43 AM
good column:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/22/police-ian-tomlinson-national-security

crackerjack
23-04-2009, 09:45 AM
good column:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/22/police-ian-tomlinson-national-security

It is, but I did choke on the idea that he'd always had faith in the police until the vdeo of Tomlinson and the raid on Green.

Doesn't he remember the Miners Strike or the SPG and Blair Peech? He's meant to be a fucking historian. Seems to me there's been a gradual trade-off between police and politicians in the last 10-15 years - you reduce visible brutality, we'll give you more restrictive powers.

john eden
23-04-2009, 10:10 AM
It's a good summary for Guardian readers but it does reinforce the gulf between people who have witnessed police violence and those who haven't.

I first saw violent cops at a demonstration about student fees about 20 years ago and in that time I've not been able to discuss that and numerous other examples with my parents without them completely losing it and us shouting at each other.

I'm not convinced the footage from the G20 protests will change their minds either but at least there is now documentary evidence so that it doesn't look like it's all being made up by political extremists who hate the police.

It's possible the media will really take this on board which could be interesting (the anniversaries of the Miners Strike, Hillsborough and Blair Peach providing a grime but journalistically useful backdrop).

This is quite an interesting development - http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/ - anarchists monitoring the Forward Intelligence Team - cops who police demonstrations. Some quite heated exchanges in the comments boxes.

matt b
23-04-2009, 10:24 AM
The opening sentence is laughable:

"There are two kinds of country: those in which ordinary, decent people are afraid of criminals but trust the police, and those in which ordinary, decent people are afraid of criminals and of the police."

The police have never thought of themselves as public servants, here to help the public- that's not what they were set up to do. Although it's obviously not his fault he's never had dealings with them.


I'm not convinced the footage from the G20 protests will change their minds either but at least there is now documentary evidence so that it doesn't look like it's all being made up by political extremists who hate the police.


This, alongside the brazen PR efforts, both before and since G20, is far more interesting- the police are suddenly aware that their actions can be viewed by others (those who aren't the sort to question the police, the media) and that these videos tell a completely different tale that traditionally wouldn't be told, as everyone would swallow the police's side of the story.

The media has been more qustioning than normal over the release of the 12 Pakistani suspects this week too.

crackerjack
23-04-2009, 10:32 AM
The opening sentence is laughable:

"There are two kinds of country: those in which ordinary, decent people are afraid of criminals but trust the police, and those in which ordinary, decent people are afraid of criminals and of the police."

The police have never thought of themselves as public servants, here to help the public- that's not what they were set up to do. Although it's obviously not his fault he's never had dealings with them.

To be fair, TGA has written extensively about the old soviet Bloc, particularly East Germany. I suspect he's weighing the British police against the Stasi.

john eden
23-04-2009, 10:32 AM
There is an interesting struggle ahead around who is allowed to photograph and film what.

Certainly the media were very keen to flag up those tourists who got pulled under anti-terrorist legislation for photographing a bus station or whatever it was. But on the other hand it would be relatively easy for the right wing media to portray fitwatch and their like as providing Fodder For Islamic Terrorists! On their way to the Olympics!

Speaking of which, that woman who got battoned at the Tomlinson memorial came out with a stroke of genius (presumably authored by Max Clifford) when she told the Daily Mail it was like being beaten by the Taliban.

crackerjack
23-04-2009, 10:52 AM
Could there be any clearer indication of a change in the weather than the fact Max C sniffs ££££?

elgato
23-04-2009, 11:00 AM
the gulf between people who have witnessed police violence and those who haven't.

this has been a bit of a shock to me, i guess i always knew this gulf existed but it had never been drawn out in such an extreme way. the number of people to whom this affair seems to have been a genuine revelation has shocked me. i think also the type of people in some cases has surprised me - guess it just goes to show

the whole business with restricting photography surely is going to be a massive political loser given the weight of public opinion? there seems to be such widespread rejection of opaque public authority at the moment

crackerjack
23-04-2009, 11:06 AM
the whole business with restricting photography surely is going to be a massive political loser given the weight of public opinion?

But only in the name of anti-terrorism, for which you can do pretty much what you like.

matt b
23-04-2009, 11:08 AM
the whole business with restricting photography surely is going to be a massive political loser given the weight of public opinion? there seems to be such widespread rejection of opaque public authority at the moment

The media may forget about soon enough. Just hype up some terror threats

Lots of good links here about the criminalisation of photographers:

http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2009/04/10/7330

Not to mention the illegality of taking pics of the police

john eden
23-04-2009, 11:15 AM
The media may forget about soon enough. Just hype up some terror threats

Exactly "well yes it's inconvenient but you can't be too careful in the current climate, can you? I don't like it any more than you do, but The Very Serious Threat To Our Way Of Life means that the appropriate precautions must be taken. Of course I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me actually Supports Terrorism - far from it."

elgato
23-04-2009, 11:18 AM
But only in the name of anti-terrorism, for which you can do pretty much what you like.

well to an extent, but the likes of the Mail and Telegraph have always loved stories about the 'nanny state' and 'snooping local authorities' and all that

but it is different because this is dependent on how far the anti-state sentiment overwhelms the general resentment / disdain for protesters as opposed to honest hard-working citizens

and matt b is probably right, these shifts are usually very transient and it wouldn't take much for things to return to normality in this regard

matt b
23-04-2009, 11:27 AM
well to an extent, but the likes of the Mail and Telegraph have always loved stories about the 'nanny state' and 'snooping local authorities' and all that

Town Hall Stasi-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1170841/Council-snoopers-stripped-Big-Brother-powers.html

However, doing this is fine:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1172510/Gaunt-Lindsay-Lohan-shows-split-lover-Samantha-taken-physical-toll.html

elgato
23-04-2009, 11:30 AM
Town Hall Stasi-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1170841/Council-snoopers-stripped-Big-Brother-powers.html

haha

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/17/article-1170841-047D9B11000005DC-128_224x95.jpg

you've got to give it to them haven't you

crackerjack
23-04-2009, 11:47 AM
However, doing this is fine:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1172510/Gaunt-Lindsay-Lohan-shows-split-lover-Samantha-taken-physical-toll.html

That's concern.

owengriffiths
23-04-2009, 02:02 PM
I never knew putting your bin out early was taboo.

matt b
23-04-2009, 02:30 PM
I never knew putting your bin out early was taboo.

The parallels between UK today and 1930's Germany should frighten us all! Kick them all out now, with "extreme prejudice" if needed, before it is too late!

Peter North, Sutton, England, 17/4/2009 10:07




first they came for the wheelie bins...

owengriffiths
23-04-2009, 02:33 PM
Am I right in assuming the contempt shown to photographers is based on the assumption that people are taking pictures to assist terrorism. You dont have to be smart to realise that a photograph can't tell you anything that you can't see with your own eyes in one second. If anything photos are worse as they will be out of focus. secondly, would a terrorist really attract attention to themselves for such a shit form of intelligence gathering?

crackerjack
23-04-2009, 02:33 PM
Message boards would colllapse if there was a moratorium on absurd Nazi analogies.

zhao
14-05-2009, 10:31 AM
not to steal the thunder from Britain but here is a nice kick in the head from the Land of the Free:

http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=c9fa91b2-a6fc-4ae3-903a-3b00c30a2e1d

Mr. Tea
14-05-2009, 10:41 AM
If anything photos are worse as they will be out of focus. secondly, would a terrorist really attract attention to themselves for such a shit form of intelligence gathering?

I dunno, most of the attempted terror attacks in Britain over the past couple of years have been so hilariously lame I don't think I'd put anything past our current crop of special-needs would-be jihadis.

mistersloane
14-05-2009, 11:13 AM
special-needs jihadis.

Band name of the week award to you, Sir.

crackerjack
12-06-2009, 11:50 AM
this is staggering - had no idea they were doing shit like this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jun/11/football-fan-compensation

john eden
12-06-2009, 01:53 PM
London's Metropolitan Police accused of waterboarding suspects

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6466430.ece

massrock
21-06-2009, 03:58 PM
So what was this business in Nottingham the other night about?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/16/police-shoot-man-with-taser

josef k.
22-06-2009, 11:10 AM
More police brutality + video.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint

Tentative Andy
22-06-2009, 11:47 AM
More police brutality + video.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint

Whoa. I have no idea of the legal status of what the women were doing, but that level of physical response just seemed totally unnecessary.
As for the Nottingham thing, the argument would be that they needed to taser him because he was resisting arrest, which to be fair you can sort of see in the video. But again, to use the taser twice and then start punching him while they have at least four officers on hand is way over the top. I think the key thing is that there's no reasonable way they can claim that punching him on the ground why he's totally immobilised is helping them to make the arrest, they're just lashing out.


Edit: the power station protest, if it gets publicised much, is obviously going to look really bad in the context of the recent concern about police officers without badge numbers in London. Complain about an officer not having a badge and you get lifted? Even if that's not the full story, it looks really bad.

massrock
22-06-2009, 01:54 PM
Andy, of course it's not possible to get the whole story from that video but the Po-lice never 'needed' to taser anyone before! I don't think it's good that this is becoming routine to the point that you can see it eventually going uncommented on.

Also it looks like the guy is resisting being tased, which seems fair enough! And they're asking him to put his arms out (why?) when obviously he's just been electrocuted and seems to be holding his chest. He looks drunk / messed up but like you say he doesn't seem to be that much of a threat to four of them.

The punching looks like some kind of 'special' punching they've been trained to do. Which raises further questions about what exactly is going on with Police training right now.

Honestly there may well be more to that story but we need to be really careful about the creeping normalisation of that kind of thing. It's not like drunken twats have suddenly got a lot more dangerous is it?

massrock
22-06-2009, 02:02 PM
They can't just decide to arrest someone without giving a reason and then decide the reason is 'resisting arrest' or 'obstruction'.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 02:11 PM
They can't just decide to arrest someone without giving a reason and then decide the reason is 'resisting arrest' or 'obstruction'.

It would be genius if they could though. Take them before the Court of Circular Logic.

IdleRich
22-06-2009, 02:28 PM
They can't just decide to arrest someone without giving a reason and then decide the reason is 'resisting arrest' or 'obstruction'.
They can't but they do.
Pretty shocking story this today though - clear evidence that they are vindictively targeting people who are simply trying to document their abuses. You would like to think that a better approach would be to stop breaking the law rather than to stop people reporting it. It feels that the balance between the police and the public has swung too far in terms of what the police are able to do. Also, this thing of arresting people and then releasing them without charge once the situation is over is obviously a deliberate tactic.
Anyone see that thing about "stop and search" in the news the other day? To make the figures look less skewed towards ethnic minorities they've been randomly and baselessly searching loads of white people. It seems that they've missed the point somewhat.

Mr. Tea
22-06-2009, 02:29 PM
It would be genius if they could though. Take them before the Court of Circular Logic.

Could these be the first arrests to be made under Kafka's Law?

I think this latest affair, plus the G20 disaster and the bus-loads of 'potentially trouble-making' footy fans getting turned away before the match had even started, is just indicative of the general tendency of the police to get away with the absolute maximum they possibly can. If the courts, the law lords and ultimately the Home Office/Secretary are going to be so pusillanimous as to let abuses like this go unpunished, then they're just going to continue (and probably escalate). I mean, I'm sure there are some good coppers out there who wouldn't remove their numbers or arrest someone for basically nothing, but that doesn't undo the fact that there are clearly plenty of officers who have no qualms about doing exactly that. Of course the reason they're doing it is to get results for their superiors, who have politically motivated reasons for silencing peaceful protesters.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 02:32 PM
Anyone see that thing about "stop and search" in the news the other day? To make the figures look less skewed towards ethnic minorities they've been randomly and baselessly searching loads of white people.

More genius. We get more like The Wire every day.

scottdisco
22-06-2009, 02:48 PM
tasers have only really started to come into UK policing in the last few years, yes? and organisations like Amnesty that deplored the move came up with some solid stats, i think, about dangers from tasers looking at studies of forces in countries that have been using them, e.g., Canada and the States.

surely a taser would incapacitate to the extent your body would barely be under your control and you'd be flipping around like jelly anyway?

the punching of the lad in Notts looked pretty hardcore, 'special' punches you say, seems like a certain sort of way of getting at between his neck and lower face or so, judging from the vid?
maybe toward his shoulder.
he was nicked on suspicion of GBH, that article said.

i bet plod had an angry crowd on their hands shortly afterward.

anyone know anyone who's been stopped and searched under anti-terror legislation? a couple of good mates of mine have.

p.s.
i know a guy who's been pepper-sprayed (police officer, as part of his training), and i know that is a pretty effective submission technique, to say the least.

massrock
22-06-2009, 02:53 PM
They can't but they do.
Yes exactly.

Where taking picture or filming becomes 'obstruction', or where asking what you are being charged with and under what law, or who they are, or just convulsing violently, becomes resisting arrest.

massrock
22-06-2009, 02:56 PM
It feels that the balance between the police and the public has swung too far in terms of what the police are able to do. Also, this thing of arresting people and then releasing them without charge once the situation is over is obviously a deliberate tactic.
This as well.

I don't think it's just getting away with what they can, if they are professional and understand their role this shouldn't be so much of an issue. It's more to do with what's going on with some training and the way the police relationship to the public is being draw. I think the cops must also be highly affected by the ambient fear tactics of political propaganda and press sensationalism. If they start to buy into it then the message is they are up against terrorists at every turn.

Sure most regular police are probably alright when it comes down to it but as an organisation they are being used as a political / corporate tool again which is dangerous. And then there are these units which are not much like regular cops at all, they're on a whole other set of rules.

Just need to keep an eye on it is all.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 03:02 PM
I think the cops must also be highly affected by the ambient fear tactics of political propaganda and press sensationalism. If they start to buy into it then the message is they are up against terrorists at every turn.

I don't really buy this. Sure, they might have thought anti-globalists would run riot in the city left unchecked, but schoolkids at some green trespass a few weeks later (all arrested in their homes prior to the demo)?

I think it's dead simple - the police will use whatever powers they're given.

Let them confiscate cameras, arrest people for asking for numbers, kettle etc etc and they'll do it.

massrock
22-06-2009, 03:03 PM
Nah that's rubbish. It's about roles and identity and relationships and how those are understood. Same as any societal structure.

Agree that they probably shouldn't have some of those 'powers' in the first place though.

scottdisco
22-06-2009, 03:09 PM
I think it's dead simple - the police will use whatever powers they're given.

i must admit i think it's more of this than anything else, as well.

'little Hitlers' syndrome etc ? ?

massrock
22-06-2009, 03:11 PM
It's not just the cops though. You see this weird attitude creeping in to lots of sorts in 'uniform' or just 'authority' everywhere.

Like something twisted becomes internalised about the relationship of 'the public' to 'authority'. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the law (although of course the law itself can be used in all sorts of exciting ambiguous ways) more don't offend me cos I've got a hat on and I say so and you should know your place. But it's about all of us and our freedoms, including those who've been given hats.

scottdisco
22-06-2009, 03:19 PM
NuLab's social authoritarianism may be undone slightly by an incoming Tory govt

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 03:21 PM
Nah that's rubbish. It's about roles and identity and relationships and how those are understood. Same as any societal structure.

What, you think police actions are completely unrelated to the powers at their disposal? :confused:

massrock
22-06-2009, 03:22 PM
Sure, they might have thought anti-globalists would run riot in the city left unchecked, but schoolkids at some green trespass a few weeks later (all arrested in their homes prior to the demo)?
Well exactly they are being politicised / used as a political force.

You know some of these guys aren't necessarily that sophisticated in terms where they get their information from and of course it's very easy to become part of a prevalent culture in an organisation, it's totally natural.

The example I always think of is working in retail. Anyone who's worked in retail or with a team that works with 'the public' in that way knows the way a certain us / them attitude can develop. So you have to be very careful in managing the way those perceptions arise, this is down to training. It doesn't matter so much with shop staff taking the piss out of custies but sometimes it's more important.

You saw the footage of the search of a climate camp protestors bedroom that was taken by his father where the police where searching for material of a 'political nature'. There seemed very little awareness on the part of that policeman what that actually meant and the implications of it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/apr/19/police-activism

massrock
22-06-2009, 03:24 PM
What, you think police actions are completely unrelated to the powers at their disposal? :confused:
Did I say that?

No, you said it was 'dead simple', they will use whatever powers given them. i.e. that's all it is.

I think I see something else at work. It's about attitude and culture and understanding of roles.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 03:37 PM
Did I say that?

No, you said it was 'dead simple', they will use whatever powers given them. i.e. that's all it is.

I think I see something else at work. It's about attitude and culture and understanding of roles.

OK, but you seemed to be implying that this was all about some institutional group think. But that has always been a factor in determining police/public relations, maybe exarcebated in recent years by anti-terror scaremongering, but recent police heavy-handedness has hardly been directed solely against Muslims.

I think govt directives and laws are more important - there was a slow reduction in police freedom to sidestep the law in the wake of the wave of wrongful convictions, going over the top during Thatcher's war on unions, Stephen Lawrence etc. That hasn't been entirely undone, but lately Nu-Lab has been a bit cannier in its methods of enablement.

mms
22-06-2009, 03:46 PM
anyone know anyone who's been stopped and searched under anti-terror legislation? a couple of good mates of mine have.



all my 'brown' friends, all of them a few years ago at least, any friend who's north african or looks arabic, including an italian friend, they've all been searched several times.

massrock
22-06-2009, 04:00 PM
OK, but you seemed to be implying that this was all about some institutional group think. But that has always been a factor in determining police/public relations, maybe exarcebated in recent years by anti-terror scaremongering, but recent police heavy-handedness has hardly been directed solely against Muslims.
No that's right, not just muslims, but the mindset is one of fear and defensiveness generally, and there is this dreadful obscene conflation of political activism and all sorts of things with terrorism. You know that, this is the worst thing and that it's not obvious to police that they are being used. It should be obvious.

I think govt directives and laws are more important - there was a slow reduction in police freedom to sidestep the law in the wake of the wave of wrongful convictions, going over the top during Thatcher's war on unions, Stephen Lawrence etc. That hasn't been entirely undone, but lately Nu-Lab has been a bit cannier in its methods of enablement.
What do you mean sidestep the law? This is the thing, you seem to think 'the police' will inherently just try and get away with whatever they can if not reigned in. The question is why? What would they be trying to achieve? I don't think that's necessarily the case but if it is so then that's an institutional problem that needs to be tackled.

Of course these things are not unrelated, there is surely a trickle down or even a direct influence of govt. directive to police attitudes but there must be clarity about the role of the organisation so this isn't so much of an issue.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 04:07 PM
No that's right, not just muslims, but the mindset is one of fear and defensiveness generally, and there is this dreadful obscene conflation of political activism and all sorts of things with terrorism. You know that, this is the worst thing and that it's not obvious to police that they are being used. It should be obvious.

I'd agree to a small extent, significantly less than you believe, though.


What do you mean sidestep the law?

Beating confessions out of suspects, for instance.


This is the thing, you seem to think 'the police' will inherently just try and get away with whatever they can if not reigned in. The question is why? What would they be trying to achieve?

It makes their job easier, reduces crime (they might believe), produces rewards for the relevant hierarchy.

matt b
22-06-2009, 04:07 PM
[QUOTE=scottdisco;191181]
anyone know anyone who's been stopped and searched under anti-terror legislation? a couple of good mates of mine have.



I have

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 04:12 PM
[QUOTE=scottdisco;191181]
anyone know anyone who's been stopped and searched under anti-terror legislation? a couple of good mates of mine have.



I have

What were the circs?

john eden
22-06-2009, 04:14 PM
Stopped, but not searched:
http://www.uncarved.org/blog/2007/12/have-you-met-the-met/

The cops were searching people in Clapton, Hackney a few weeks back and it looked like they had a quota thing going on. First guyI saw was a black kid with a hoodie. Then on my way back 'round they were searching a middle aged white commuter in a suit.

matt b
22-06-2009, 04:17 PM
[QUOTE=matt b;191210]

What were the circs?

on way home from work in Leeds station. Walking to train. Pulled by two police. They refused to say why (don't have to under terror leg) me and bag searched. Handed paper work and let go.

ACAB

massrock
22-06-2009, 04:19 PM
I'd agree to a small extent, significantly less than you believe, though.
Sorry not sure what you mean.

You'd agree with what significantly less than you think I believe?

massrock
22-06-2009, 04:25 PM
It makes their job easier, reduces crime (they might believe), produces rewards for the relevant hierarchy.
You'd think they'd rather get away with eating bagels and pastries.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 04:27 PM
Sorry not sure what you mean.

You'd agree with what significantly less than you think I believe?

I mean the phenomenon you've been outlining in your last several posts is an influence, but significantly less of one than you appear to believe.

scottdisco
22-06-2009, 04:31 PM
great blog post John!

some very sobering feedback from your own - or that of friends wrt mms, very depressing - experiences.
Matt eek :slanted:

my pals were stopped under anti-terror, and not searched (sorry, should have clarified), at least not searched IIRC. one of them didn't mind it (he was on the South Bank quite late one night); the other bloody well did (in the West Country IIRC).


Amnesty International today (16 October) expressed concern after a man died in County Durham, three days after he was shot with a Taser electro-shock weapon and a baton round. Brian Loan, 47, is believed to be the first person in the UK to die after being shocked with a Taser. A Home Office post-mortem reportedly found that he had died of natural causes. ...A March 2006 report from Amnesty International revealed that since June 2001, 152 people have died in the USA after being shot with tasers, 61 in 2005 alone. Most were subjected to multiple or prolonged shocks. In 23 US cases coroners have listed the use of the taser as a cause or a contributory factor in death and in three cases in 2005 the taser was listed as a primary cause of death.' ...Our research in the USA shows that Tasers can kill. Amnesty is worried that their increasing use in the UK is a slippery slope towards arming all police officers with Tasers. We want a public statement from the Home Office that these weapons will only ever be used by trained firearms officers, as an alternative to firearms.

Amnesty UK, 17 October 2006 (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17140)

josef k.
22-06-2009, 04:35 PM
Stopped, but not searched:
http://www.uncarved.org/blog/2007/12/have-you-met-the-met/

The cops were searching people in Clapton, Hackney a few weeks back and it looked like they had a quota thing going on. First guyI saw was a black kid with a hoodie. Then on my way back 'round they were searching a middle aged white commuter in a suit.

The idea that the police should be randomly stopping and searching people - anyone - with no probable cause is totally crazy, and is the symptom of a police state.

massrock
22-06-2009, 04:38 PM
I think people in Berlin have a better perspective on this generally. From there it looks utterly insane.

john eden
22-06-2009, 04:42 PM
The idea that the police should be randomly stopping and searching people - anyone - with no probable cause is totally crazy, and is the symptom of a police state.

Quite. But I don't think it's anything new.

droid
22-06-2009, 04:45 PM
None of this is anything new really is it? Just more sophisticated versions of stuff that's been going on for decades.

IdleRich
22-06-2009, 04:50 PM
Yeah, my friend got prevention of terrorismed while he was taking pictures near the South Bank (I think it was).


"Quite. But I don't think it's anything new."
Surely true but their powers have been increased which suggests that it may be worse than it was. On the other hand there is more oversight of police when they overstep the mark as everyone has a mobile phone camera these days so that may counterbalance this to some extent.

Tentative Andy
22-06-2009, 04:52 PM
Andy, of course it's not possible to get the whole story from that video but the Po-lice never 'needed' to taser anyone before! I don't think it's good that this is becoming routine to the point that you can see it eventually going uncommented on.

Also it looks like the guy is resisting being tased, which seems fair enough! And they're asking him to put his arms out (why?) when obviously he's just been electrocuted and seems to be holding his chest. He looks drunk / messed up but like you say he doesn't seem to be that much of a threat to four of them.

The punching looks like some kind of 'special' punching they've been trained to do. Which raises further questions about what exactly is going on with Police training right now.

Honestly there may well be more to that story but we need to be really careful about the creeping normalisation of that kind of thing. It's not like drunken twats have suddenly got a lot more dangerous is it?

Sorry yeah, you're right - I guess I was playing devil's advocate, or at least putting forward the sort of argument one might expect from someone defending the police, but that's probably not the best way to deal with the situation.
(To clarify, two of my friends had a massive row about the taser video while we were hanging out on Friday night. I largely stayed out of it, being too tired/drunk to contribute much. But the point is that the sort of defence I mentioned does exist out there).

I'm very much concerned about people becoming accustomed to the routine use of tasers, which I'm not at all sure should have been permitted for use in the first place. Also in this specific case, I think we can safely say that it was totally unnecessary (and potentially dangerous) to use the taser on someone twice in such a short space of time. Many was already out of the game.
Getting him to put his arms out was so he could be cuffed, I assumed. Though i/r/t your point about the punching method, it might just be how they are trained to proceed, putting the suspect under a set of commands so as to control them.

josef k.
22-06-2009, 04:54 PM
None of this is anything new really is it?

I don't know. I think some of the political decisions made under Blair in particular have definitely changed the dynamic. For instance, having the police search the offices of sitting MPs (the Damien Green thing) is a pretty worrying development. Similarly, the whitewash that followed the shooting of Menezes was highly alarming. In the wake of that incident, it was revealed that the police had "shoot-to-kill" order. Sorry, what? Who has the authority to give those kinds of orders?

Tentative Andy
22-06-2009, 04:56 PM
They can't just decide to arrest someone without giving a reason and then decide the reason is 'resisting arrest' or 'obstruction'.

Very well put, and again I completely agree.
And what is especially disconcerting in the protest case is that although the second woman seemed (quite understandably) to kick out a bit, the first didn't appear to actively resist arrest at all. The whole bit of dragging her and holding down on the ground seemed to serve no purpose at all, except maybe to put the frighteners on her.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 05:02 PM
I don't know. I think some of the political decisions made under Blair in particular have definitely changed the dynamic. For instance, having the police search the offices of sitting MPs (the Damien Green thing) is a pretty worrying development.

Agreed.


Similarly, the whitewash that followed the shooting of Menezes was highly alarming. In the wake of that incident, it was revealed that the police had "shoot-to-kill" order.

Serious question: has any officer ever been found guilty of illegally killing someone on duty? Again, I don't think was a sudden development.

Tentative Andy
22-06-2009, 05:02 PM
For instance, having the police search the offices of sitting MPs (the Damien Green thing) is a pretty worrying development.

Dunno about that, I have to say. 'Having them' search in the sense of ordering them to is obviously problematic if the order is coming from other politicians (I'm not at all sure that this is what happened though). But allowing them the juristiction to search MPs as they would other citizens is surely right and proper, why should politicians get any special treatment?
I acknowledge that I may be misunderstanding the situation - please explain to me how if so. And I agree about Menezes, btw.

scottdisco
22-06-2009, 05:05 PM
as said earlier, Blair really brought in a whole lot of socially authoritarian cobblers.

even the Jeruslaem police - certainly at the time of the Met shooting that guy at Stockwell - had never killed an innocent whilst dealing with prospective suicide bombers, AFAIK.
and then the Met go and whack an electrician on their first attempt.

(that said there's more to the Damian Green thing than meets the eye AFAIK, not just some noble libertarian whistle-blower being harassed by the paternal NuLab machine. but this observation totally OT so please ignore.)

and Harry Stanley wrt Cracker's question, too.

just for starters, like.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 05:10 PM
and Harry Stanley wrt Cracker's question, too..


High Court

In May 2005 the High Court decided that there was "insufficient evidence" for the verdict of unlawful killing, overturning it and reinstating the open verdict of the first inquest.[10] Mr. Justice Leveson also decided a third inquest should not be held, but added his weight to calls for reform of the inquest system.[11] Glen Smyth described the ruling as "common sense"[12], but the campaign group Inquest was disappointed, saying the verdict sent "a message that families cannot have any confidence in the system. They feel they cannot get justice when a death in custody occurs."

Police action

On 2 June 2005 the two officers involved in the shooting were arrested and interviewed, following an investigation by Surrey Police involving new forensic evidence.[14] The Crown Prosecution Service decided in October 2005 not to press charges, saying that they "concluded that the prosecution evidence is insufficient to rebut the officers' assertion that they were acting in self defence".[15][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley

Also, a point I meant to make in my previous post, but somehow deleted...the PF advised their members to refuse the use of guns if the oficers responsible were charged.

droid
22-06-2009, 05:12 PM
When my ma, nan and uncle went to London in the mid 70s they were searched and detained by the Met for half a day, and my uncle was slapped around a bit. His crime? He was Irish, had a super 8 camera and was filming home movies in Trafalgar square...

massrock
22-06-2009, 05:16 PM
I mean the phenomenon you've been outlining in your last several posts is an influence, but significantly less of one than you appear to believe.
This is a bit abstract. I know we should probably all be doing something else right now but you are just referring to ideas in your head about what you think I've said, it's not very clear.

But never mind that, let's just not reduce contributions to simplistic caricatures.

Of course I don't disagree with you that govt. policy and legislation is a factor. But you can't bring it down to carrying out orders. I think on the most basic level of where these situations occur it has to be understood in terms of human relationships. Which means that what takes place is very much informed by how people perceive roles.

And there are these very heavy handed messages about 'terrorism' and 'national security', yes as if to give legitimacy to authoritarian attitudes. And not everyone thinks very deeply about this stuff or examines it, it becomes a toxic ambience.

I mean we're probably talking about the same elephant but looking at it from different sides. To me though there needs to be a good understanding or re-establishing of fundamental rights and roles and what is and isn't acceptable first, these things have become confused and skewed.

crackerjack
22-06-2009, 05:17 PM
Oh, and...


In the wake of that incident, it was revealed that the police had "shoot-to-kill" order. Sorry, what? Who has the authority to give those kinds of orders?

Dude, they did suspect him of being a suicide bomber and he was getting on a tube train. Obviously the fact they get the wrong man is unforgivable, and letting him get that far just baffling, and let's not even go into all the outrageous lies told afterwards, but... IF he had been the right suspect and IF they'd had no opportunity to arrest him before getting on the train, what would the alternative to shoot-to-kill have been? Wave your truncheon? Stop jihadi? Threaten to shoot someone intent on suicide-murder and strapped with explosives?

massrock
22-06-2009, 05:25 PM
I know these things are not new. The dehumanisation of 'suspects', especially those that are plainly not being violent, should always be shocking and unacceptable though.

The sudden outcry about police tactics at the G20 protests was definitely darkly amusing for anyone who has been involved in protests or free festivals or whatever. Not that it isn't a good thing that light is shed on what happens.

josef k.
23-06-2009, 12:49 AM
Dude, they did suspect him of being a suicide bomber and he was getting on a tube train. Obviously the fact they get the wrong man is unforgivable, and letting him get that far just baffling, and let's not even go into all the outrageous lies told afterwards, but... IF he had been the right suspect and IF they'd had no opportunity to arrest him before getting on the train, what would the alternative to shoot-to-kill have been? Wave your truncheon? Stop jihadi? Threaten to shoot someone intent on suicide-murder and strapped with explosives?


But this suspicion was based on totally compromised intelligence, the function of a general collapse in policing ability brought-about in part by the politicization of the police force, and in fact, carried-out by its most politicized wing: the anti-terror squad, elsewhere to be witnessed fabricating conspiracy charges against random groups of people, based on allegations likely made by paid informers, and then losing again and again in the courts. The police can't just shoot people if they suspect them to be dangerous based on idiotic conjectures and a failure to properly assess the situation (he was walking calmly, not carrying a backpack, etc). Now, I grant the police can sometimes make mistakes... but then what happened afterwards: NOBODY RESIGNED. NOBODY WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT. This was a total breakdown of the mechanism of justice.

Mr. Tea
23-06-2009, 01:25 AM
But this suspicion was based on totally compromised intelligence, the function of a general collapse in policing ability brought-about in part by the politicization of the police force, and in fact, carried-out by its most politicized wing: the anti-terror squad, elsewhere to be witnessed fabricating conspiracy charges against random groups of people, based on allegations likely made by paid informers, and then losing again and again in the courts.

So a combination not only of general trigger-happy paranoia and creeping authoritarianisation but also plain organisational and procedural incompetence? Sounds like a recipe for the perfect fail.

Massrock is on the money about the conflation of activism with terrorism, it's an extremely worrying development (if it even is a 'development', but it does seem to be increasing, especially as climate change protests become more frequent).

And it's just beyond screwed-up that coppers can stop-n-search you now without having to say why - it's all of a piece with officers removing their numbers, an erosion of the principles of transparency in the way policing and law are conducted. To say nothing of people being arrested without being told what for - I mean, that is (still) illegal, isn't it? I'm reminded of a complaint that's frequently been made, especially with regards to people getting stopped or nicked for taking photos, that the police themselves are sometimes alarmingly ignorant of what the law actually says on such issues. Or if not ignorant then simply apathetic, I'm not sure which is worse.

crackerjack
23-06-2009, 09:12 AM
But this suspicion was based on totally compromised intelligence, the function of a general collapse in policing ability brought-about in part by the politicization of the police force, and in fact, carried-out by its most politicized wing: the anti-terror squad, elsewhere to be witnessed fabricating conspiracy charges against random groups of people, based on allegations likely made by paid informers, and then losing again and again in the courts. The police can't just shoot people if they suspect them to be dangerous based on idiotic conjectures and a failure to properly assess the situation (he was walking calmly, not carrying a backpack, etc).

No, you're starting at the end and working backwards. Your initial complaint was that there was a shoot-to-kill policy in operation, even though three men attempted suicide bombing missions on the tube the previous day and some were still at large. There was, understandably, a real concern that they would try again.

I reckon - and never having been involved in security matters, I'm just gonna hazard a guess here - if the police had gone in front of the Home Sec or whoever the relevant authority is, and said they've got a "suspicion based on totally compromised intelligence...based on idiotic conjectures and a failure to properly assess the situation " permission would've been denied.


but then what happened afterwards: NOBODY RESIGNED. NOBODY WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT. This was a total breakdown of the mechanism of justice.

No need for capitals, we're in total agreement on this part.

josef k.
23-06-2009, 05:02 PM
if the police had gone in front of the Home Sec or whoever the relevant authority is....

It isn't clear to me who in fact did give this order... who authorized this policy. I am not sure it was the home sec... the policy seems to have just suddenly materialized at some point.

scottdisco
23-06-2009, 05:24 PM
When my ma, nan and uncle went to London in the mid 70s they were searched and detained by the Met for half a day, and my uncle was slapped around a bit. His crime? He was Irish, had a super 8 camera and was filming home movies in Trafalgar square...

:mad:


I reckon - and never having been involved in security matters, I'm just gonna hazard a guess here - if the police had gone in front of the Home Sec or whoever the relevant authority is, and said they've got a "suspicion based on totally compromised intelligence...based on idiotic conjectures and a failure to properly assess the situation " permission would've been denied.

this is correct.

josef k.
23-06-2009, 05:42 PM
Incidentally - and speaking of intelligence failures - according to the US journalist Ron Suskin, the lead bomber on 7/7, Mohammed Sidique Khan, had been known to US intelligence sources since at least 2003. Khan was considered such a threat that he was prohibited from flying anywhere in the USA... and his file was passed-on to British intelligence, who did nothing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-391313/US-issued-alert-bomber-years-7-7.html

scottdisco
24-06-2009, 11:38 AM
OT but it's such a shame that the British security services are so (relatively) underfunded; they can't even afford to get to grips with intercept evidence in court!

would be grand if they could, of course.

massrock
24-06-2009, 01:47 PM
Sure it's lack of funding more than bad resource allocation and inefficiency? If other government departments can haemorrhage public money just imagine what the spooks can get up to!

How much have they spent trying to develop systems to watch every moving byte on the internet? Or spying on dangerous sorts like environmental campaigners and god knows who else?

scottdisco
24-06-2009, 02:17 PM
sadly as the current system is set in the UK intercept transcripts etc for court use, would be too costly in terms of manpower and hours. by too costly, i mean, impossible to render.

it is such a crying shame.

the USA is the envy of security services elsewhere in terms of the generous funding their security organisations and crime-fighting bodies get (of course at the lower-level this generalisation becomes more and more imprecise: i gather the stony broke nature of the Baltimore PD portrayed in The Wire is pretty true-to-life).

IdleRich
24-06-2009, 02:27 PM
Part of the reason that they want longer detention without trial is because they often haven't the resources to interview people straight away or gather the necessary evidence in time. Seems a shame that we have to compromise our freedom 'cause the police haven't got enough money to do the job as quickly as it could be done but there you go.

scottdisco
24-06-2009, 02:28 PM
well i mean not just the USA, i don't have figures to hand elsewhere but of course the likes of Guojia Anquan Bu and India's Intelligence Bureau are - i would stab in the dark - pretty well funded.

VEVAK certainly is.

massrock
24-06-2009, 02:35 PM
Of course I don't have figures but the inefficiency of govt. spending is staggering and I'm sure the intel services are lumbered with having to do all sorts of pointless stuff.

That's interesting though scott, sounds like you have an interest. Are you a spy? :slanted:

I mean you don't hear the resources argument much wrt wanting longer detention, I guess cos it would make them look ineffectual publicly.

vimothy
24-06-2009, 02:36 PM
The new era of terrorism is very problematic with regards to traditional understandings of intelligence, and hence to traditional institutional frameworks for intelligence gathering and analysis. What I mean is, intelligence failures in the run up to 9/11, e.g., generally have their roots in a particular way of understanding the role of intelligence and the legal policies that enable it.

Have more to add later...

Mr. Tea
24-06-2009, 02:37 PM
The obvious solution is to outsource police intelligence to the private sector.

Obviously.

scottdisco
24-06-2009, 02:44 PM
MI5 'starved of funds' in run-up to July 7 attacks (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mi5-starved-of-funds-in-runup-to-july-7-attacks-1687780.html)

includes a short, useful list at the end

The conspiracy theories... and the truth


and I'm sure the intel services are lumbered with having to do all sorts of pointless stuff.

oh i bet.


That's interesting though scott, sounds like you have an interest. Are you a spy? :slanted:

no.


I mean you don't hear the resources argument much wrt wanting longer detention, I guess cos it would make them look ineffectual publicly.

from the pov of the British security services longer detention is not, and should not be, warranted; however, the buck stops with the police, who are the people that have to take action on the intelligence.

which brings us back nicely to the title of this thread :)

massrock
24-06-2009, 02:49 PM
which brings us back nicely to the title of this thread :)
It's all cops. I think it makes sense to have a thread about all types of coppery.

Mr. Tea
24-06-2009, 04:46 PM
no.


That's exactly what a spy would say. :slanted:

cobretti
01-07-2009, 02:34 AM
Don't know if this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5698905/ID-cards-will-not-be-compulsory-says-Alan-Johnson.html#article) has been discussed or not, noteworthy nonetheless. What a waste of money.

Mr. Tea
01-07-2009, 02:30 PM
Don't know if this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5698905/ID-cards-will-not-be-compulsory-says-Alan-Johnson.html#article) has been discussed or not, noteworthy nonetheless. What a waste of money.

Yeah, saw that on on the Beeb last night. "Wast of money is" is about right, ahem!



A pilot scheme for airside workers, which marked the first attempt at making the £4.9 billion programme compulsory for British nationals has been abandoned.

You could buy almost two entire Large Hadron Colliders for that. :eek:

sufi
01-07-2009, 03:07 PM
i was off work for a week this month and around london and i swear i had a severe police encounter every single day
2 big police checks at Hackney downs, stop & searches (only apparently of black people), altho this was after a kid got stabbed, the whole entrance to the station blocked up with metal detectors etc...
stopped once cos i was in a river, minding my own business
got home one evening to find my entire (quiet, suburban) street under roadblock, with a stealth white van up the road doing electornic checks then pulling anyone the computer disliked
i don't know if it's just my impression but is this level of activity normal or increased? it right shit me up anyway i can tell you

the hackney downs case was the most intimidating and irritating as i walked straight thru, bifta in hand, clearly because of being white....

sufi
01-07-2009, 03:10 PM
o yes and eyeballed badly by a cop with a semi-automatic one day in green park - i was smoking & he obv couldnt leave his post gaurding some st james doorway :eek::D

STN
23-07-2009, 04:10 PM
oh, really?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23714207-details/Police+claim+Ian+Tomlinson+could+have+been+attacke d+by+fake+G20+cop/article.do

crackerjack
23-07-2009, 04:26 PM
oh, really?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23714207-details/Police+claim+Ian+Tomlinson+could+have+been+attacke d+by+fake+G20+cop/article.do

Given how many people were claiming RBS' windows were smashed by police agent provateurs, seems only fair they're permitted an absurd conspiracy all of their own. Though this one - involving not just one fake fully kitted-out 'cop', but also three coleagues and a dog - may be pushing it a little.

Is taking the public for mugs a criminal offence, same as wasting police time?

massrock
23-07-2009, 05:21 PM
According to an officer investigating the 47-year-old's death he could have clashed with a protester "dressed in police uniform" before he collapsed at the G20 demonstrations on 1 April.
Well yeah, he could have been trampled by a herd of wilderbeest sweeping majestically across the City but it's also not very likely. And someone would probably have noticed that as well.

Maybe it was Police dressed as protesters dressed as Police getting all confused and freaking out with Substance D withdrawal?

Mind you, check this out from Julian Cope's experience of the day.


Of course, I was dressed extremely dodgily, with my hair up in a black wig and dressed in the kind of all-purpose rural chic that couldnít have been further from my regular Rock God image (!). The police, however, were so fucking paranoid that they conducted a Stop & Search on me at the top of the escalators at 10.20; a full 40 minutes before the march had even started. Of course, I declined to give my name and address and, having no ID or cards on me, they detained me and wrote down a description. Unfortunately, when the main cop read on the report that I was wearing a stab vest, he came over personally and demanded to look at it. I just about managed to take the thing off without disturbing my wig, but the cop told me he believed the vest was part of a stolen consignment of police uniforms and gear, and that Iíd taken off the labels to hide this fact. Kiddies, Iíve had this stab vest at least two years and wear it any time Iím in the city, but the cops just used this as an excuse to do a full body search and they soon confiscated my burka, a pair of womenís tights and all of my (expensive) police body armour. All of this occurred in full view of the general public and was clearly done just to make a show of me. When I still didnít give my name, they sat me in a van to think about it for hours and the fucking protest went off with me detained. In the meantime, dammit, an exultant Merrick was texting me from Bishopsgate telling me the Climate Camp have taken over, while Gyrus had been penned in at the Bank of England. With hindsight, Iíll admit I looked extremely dodgy. But what got me most was how the police discovered all of my gear but still didnít realize I was wearing a 99p black eBay wig! On the Stop & Search report Iím even described as having ĎHair: black, short.í I canít show you my face on the self-portrait I took as I plan to use this disguise again in the future, but Holy McGrail referred to it as Scargill Chic and pointed out that there are clearly blonde tufts visible from underneath the rug. If McGrail could suss it from the crappy mobile phone photo (shown above), then so much for the Westís so-called War on Terror. What the fuck!

http://headheritage.co.uk/addressdrudion/119/2009

scottdisco
24-07-2009, 10:14 AM
Julian Cope always wears a stab vest when he visits London? eh?

weirdo.

crackerjack
23-06-2013, 09:21 PM
If this is verified, have Francis's seniors broken any laws? All I can think of is wasting police time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/23/stephen-lawrence-undercover-police-smears?CMP=twt_gu

Mr. Tea
04-07-2013, 03:55 PM
California Police Arrest Man for Video Recording, then Kill his Dog (http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/07/01/california-police-arrest-man-for-video-recording-then-kill-his-dog/)

john eden
04-07-2013, 09:21 PM
If this is verified, have Francis's seniors broken any laws? All I can think of is wasting police time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/23/stephen-lawrence-undercover-police-smears?CMP=twt_gu

Perverting the course of justice.

Gross incompetence / failure to correctly allocate resources to an investigation.

Libel.

Fraud.

Slothrop
05-07-2013, 12:14 AM
It's alright, though, I'm sure it'll turn out they didn't do anything wrong.

Sectionfive
05-07-2013, 12:57 AM
acted in good faith

john eden
05-07-2013, 08:49 AM
Lessons to be learned.

IdleRich
05-07-2013, 10:56 AM
Weird how Smiley Culture just stabbed himself like that eh?

crackerjack
05-07-2013, 11:06 AM
Weird how Smiley Culture just stabbed himself like that eh?

And then wiped the knife clean of prints - something that none of this week's reports seem to have mentioned.

Although old reports did say his DNA was on it, for what that's worth...

crackerjack
05-07-2013, 11:12 AM
Perverting the course of justice.

Gross incompetence / failure to correctly allocate resources to an investigation.

Libel.

Fraud.

Those in 2nd line aren't crimes though - presumably just disciplinary issues.

On libel, do you mean the OTR briefings they were said to have been giving that Brooks might have been involved?

Mr. Tea
05-07-2013, 11:15 AM
Weird how Smiley Culture just stabbed himself like that eh?

And how Mark Duggan managed to shoot a cop with another cop's gun without ever touching it.

hucks
05-07-2013, 11:40 AM
What about Norman fucking Bettison (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/05/norman-bettison-mohammed-amran-allegations)? Has there been a bigger cunt employed in British public service in the last 30 years? Harold Shipman maybe comes close.

john eden
05-07-2013, 12:57 PM
Those in 2nd line aren't crimes though - presumably just disciplinary issues.

On libel, do you mean the OTR briefings they were said to have been giving that Brooks might have been involved?

Fair enough, but I doubt they will actually end up being disciplinary issues anyway.

And yeah I suspect there will be internal or external documents which are libelous about Duwayne Brooks. Not that anything will come of it.

This get us into the interesting area of police crime. When citizens commit crimes they are tried in a court of law first and foremost. When cops commit crimes it starts as an internal matter, for some reason.

crackerjack
05-07-2013, 01:40 PM
Police statement due some time in 2014:


Obviously officer E7 has suffered a terrible and stressful ordeal and the Met welcomes his complete acquittal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/05/azelle-rodney-death-metropolitan-police

Mr. Tea
05-07-2013, 02:44 PM
How can anyone claim with a straight face that the IPCC is 'independent' when it's administered by the same bloody department as the police themselves?

Sectionfive
05-07-2013, 08:14 PM
The MET have something like 70 Press Officers. They aren't compelled to appear or cooperate with their own internal investigations.

Mr. Tea
09-02-2014, 06:59 PM
Cop who smashed disabled pensioner's car window gets £440,000 payout. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/05/policeman-smashed-pensioner-window-payout)

(The pensioner got twenty grand, in case you were wondering.)


Baillon, a police officer for 16 years, eventually left and set up a woodcraft business that makes decorative reindeer and other products .

Still, as well as end's well, eh?

NATO
10-02-2014, 03:52 AM
An internal inquiry cleared PC Baillon...

:mad:

crackerjack
10-02-2014, 04:54 PM
Cop who smashed disabled pensioner's car window gets £440,000 payout. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/05/policeman-smashed-pensioner-window-payout)

(The pensioner got twenty grand, in case you were wondering.)



Still, as well as end's well, eh?

But the other police were mean to him. :(

Mr. Tea
13-05-2014, 01:26 PM
Blogger 'asked' by police to take down sarcastic 'reasons to vote for UKIP' tweet. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27380530)

Woman stabbed by neighbour after reporting stalking behaviour on 125 occasions. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-27384422)

Intimidating someone into refraining from a completely legal act of political expression and then failing to lift a finger to stop a woman being attacked by the neighbourhood psycho. Fuck these pricks, seriously.

HMGovt
20-05-2014, 02:30 PM
Man pepper sprayed by Sussex Police drowns in Hastings lake
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-27485138

crackerjack
21-05-2014, 02:12 PM
Bit of a Nixon-to-China moment. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/21/police-federation-home-secretary-reform-government-intervene

john eden
22-05-2014, 07:31 PM
Yeah you know the cops have properly fucked it up when the Tories are laying into them the year before an election.

DannyL
22-05-2014, 10:35 PM
Can't help but wonder if this is about Plebgate and nothing else though. Hillsborough - does that really count for May? Especially as it was all done at the behest of a Tory government.

crackerjack
23-05-2014, 11:10 AM
Can't help but wonder if this is about Plebgate and nothing else though. Hillsborough - does that really count for May? Especially as it was all done at the behest of a Tory government.

I think it was the conflation of a number of things (Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough, Tomlinson included) providing the cover for May to do what all governments would like to have done before, but didn't have the bottle. Plebgate just made it personal.

Patrick Swayze
23-05-2014, 01:59 PM
there are few things more enjoyable than watching youtube clips of red-faced impotent policemen moved to near tears of rage

john eden
23-05-2014, 04:59 PM
I think it was the conflation of a number of things (Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough, Tomlinson included) providing the cover for May to do what all governments would like to have done before, but didn't have the bottle. Plebgate just made it personal.

Yep. A few scandals too many, and not at all contrite about it.

She's also positioning herself for leadership I reckon.

matt b
25-05-2014, 09:24 PM
Hiring Jon Gaunt as PR guru was always going to end in tears.

crackerjack
26-05-2014, 10:45 AM
Hiring Jon Gaunt as PR guru was always going to end in tears.

His involvement really is the delicious side dish that makes the whole affair complete, puffed-up self-satisfied Littlejohn wannabe that he is.