the cops

[IdleRich]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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...

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.]

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]

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]

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?