Commissar Broadhurst of the Peoples Armed Police

#1
Sickening, how an officer of the law can simply roll over and play poodle to the demands of a foreign dictatorship. This provides an insight into the mindset of these supposed public servants and their political masters...they probably would have let Hitler's SD and SS goose-step through London, smashing the windows of a few synagogues, if the torch had been allowed to pass this way in 1936! No wonder there is no police shame over incidents like the shooting of J C De Menezes....the rights of the policed fall by the wayside when it comes to the greater national purpose!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article3882459.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Organization_and_role

Metropolitan Police defend role of Olympic guard ‘thugs’

The Metropolitan Police commander in charge of policing the London Olympic torch procession defended the role of Chinese security guards branded as “thugs” by Lord Coe.

Commander Robert Broadhurst said that there had been several intimations from the Chinese authorities that the London leg of the Olympic torch relay would have been switched to another capital if Britain had banned the “torch attendants”.

He admitted to MPs yesterday that Scotland Yard had not anticipated the torch coming under attack from the moment it left Wembley stadium until it finished the journey 31 miles later in Greenwich.

Commander Broadhurst also disclosed to MPs that the Chinese Embassy had raised concerns about “free protests” on the streets, that in the days preceding the relay the Chinese Ambassador had serious concerns about her personal safety and that the police were concerned about the length of the relay.

He told MPs on the Commons Home Affairs select committee: “It was a rolling mêlée for 31 miles. It was undignified. Officers were attacked, bottles and cans were thrown at us along a large part of the route.”

Faced with allegations that the Chinese security guards pushed, shoved and punched protesters, Mr Broadhurst said it was “a natural reaction” by people who thought their “hugely significant” torch was in peril, and who were in danger of losing face. He said that 2,060 police were involved in protecting the torch at a cost of £746,005.

He suggested that there needed to be serious talks about whether a worldwide relay should take place when Britain hosts the Olympics in 2012. Mr Broadhurst also disclosed that the Chinese Embassy had been concerned that Britain was to allow “free protest” but that the police had made it quite clear that “on the streets of London, that is accepted”.

Police had negotiated with the Chinese through the Greater London Authority and the Chinese had “tried to stamp their authority”, but the Metropolitan Police had reminded them in “no uncertain terms” who was in charge of the operation.

Mr Broadhurst said that there had been disorder during the relay but it involved British police as well as the Chinese. He said six complaints were received, three of which had been resolved. There had been no formal complaint from Lord Coe, who said he had been pushed and shoved by the Chinese guards.

He added that a decision had yet to be taken on whether the torch would return to London to mark the Paralympics.
 
#3
Commander Robert Broadhurst said that there had been several intimations from the Chinese authorities that the London leg of the Olympic torch relay would have been switched to another capital if Britain had banned the “torch attendants”.
Now I'm a fan of the Olympics but in the case of the torch, who cares!
 
#4
This is just embarrassing. How DARE they try to dictate the terms of reference in another sovereign country.

I love the Olympics, and will happily while away the hours watching talented atheletes doing their thing. The Torch procession is a load of old bunkum though.

As far as I am concerned the moment a "Blue Trackie" struck out he should have been arrested for Public Order offences, just like any of the Swampies protesting against the torch.

If the Chinese packed up their Parrots and Monkeys, so be it. We make it quite clear, in the full view of the Worlds Press that a Foreign Government cannot expect their employees to get away with breaking the Law.
 
#5
Heedthebaw said:
This is just embarrassing. How DARE they try to dictate the terms of reference in another sovereign country.
Yeah, just imagine folk trying to do that. 8O

Glass houses, and all that.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
In the good old days, the British gobment and police would have simply put it across that law and order and the protection of people going about their business was the responsibility of the sovereign state, and that if the torch was to be carried through this country, our own forces of law and order would protect it, not some foreign nationals.

These days, we are no longer a sovereign state. Who do you think that copper got his orders from? The Chinese, or the gobment, or, maybe, just maybe, Red Ken?
 
#7
smartascarrots said:
Heedthebaw said:
This is just embarrassing. How DARE they try to dictate the terms of reference in another sovereign country.
Yeah, just imagine folk trying to do that. 8O

Glass houses, and all that.
Point Taken. I think we weren't dictating the terms in that little adventure, we are, however, damned by association.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#8
"Faced with allegations that the Chinese security guards pushed, shoved and punched protesters, Mr Broadhurst said it was “a natural reaction” by people who thought their “hugely significant” torch was in peril, and who were in danger of losing face. He said that 2,060 police were involved in protecting the torch at a cost of £746,005."

I'll step out of line here and say that I don't think he is being that unreasonable.

There is a thin line between the rights of protesters and the rights of the law abiding to go about their business unmolested. In this case we tend to have sympathy with the protesters and not with the law abiding.

Would that the police took this more practical view when the rest of us have natural reactions - Tony Martin et al.
 
#9
BuggerAll said:
"Faced with allegations that the Chinese security guards pushed, shoved and punched protesters, Mr Broadhurst said it was “a natural reaction” by people who thought their “hugely significant” torch was in peril, and who were in danger of losing face. He said that 2,060 police were involved in protecting the torch at a cost of £746,005."

I'll step out of line here and say that I don't think he is being that unreasonable.

There is a thin line between the rights of protesters and the rights of the law abiding to go about their business unmolested. In this case we tend to have sympathy with the protesters and not with the law abiding.

Would that the police took this more practical view when the rest of us have natural reactions - Tony Martin et al.
Chinese secret policemen can hardly be described as law abiding can they?

It's funny that a gobment that preaches Human Rights should allow such undesirables into our country.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#10
The_Cad said:
BuggerAll said:
"Faced with allegations that the Chinese security guards pushed, shoved and punched protesters, Mr Broadhurst said it was “a natural reaction” by people who thought their “hugely significant” torch was in peril, and who were in danger of losing face. He said that 2,060 police were involved in protecting the torch at a cost of £746,005."

I'll step out of line here and say that I don't think he is being that unreasonable.

There is a thin line between the rights of protesters and the rights of the law abiding to go about their business unmolested. In this case we tend to have sympathy with the protesters and not with the law abiding.

Would that the police took this more practical view when the rest of us have natural reactions - Tony Martin et al.
Chinese secret policemen can hardly be described as law abiding can they?

It's funny that a gobment that preaches Human Rights should allow such undesirables into our country.
In the sense that they were going about their legitimate business and only allegedly broke the law after they, or the thing they were guarding, was attacked they were law abiding.

If marshalls from the countryside alliance dealt with hunt sabs I don't think you would find many people on here protesting, although I doubt if the police would be so sympathetic.

In fact the outcome of the torch procession was quite positive. It has given the Chinese quite a shock - they are having talks in Beijing with the Dalia Lama's representatives this week.

These talks may be window dressing but from little acorns etc. See;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7366500.stm
 
#11
Anybody who still believes that the UK enjoys policing by consensus probably also thinks we still have a democracy...
 
#12
Parading the Olympic torch was instigated by Hitler during the 1936( or there about) Olympics as a propoganda tool. Accordingly, in the great scheme of things such as time, there is very little precedent.

Should the parading of the torch be curtailed?

I like the idea of connecting the world before the event and if it provokes legitimate and peacefull demonstrations then so be it.
 
#14
The Australians didn't let the goon's run with the torch and the Chinese didn't pull it from there.
 
#16
smartascarrots said:
Heedthebaw said:
This is just embarrassing. How DARE they try to dictate the terms of reference in another sovereign country.
Yeah, just imagine folk trying to do that. 8O

Glass houses, and all that.
Well said Carrots.
At least you can walk round Beijing without getting mugged.
 
#17
Malteser said:
petergriffen said:
The Australians didn't let the goon's run with the torch and the Chinese didn't pull it from there.
That’s because the whole world knows that the UK is now a push over. Was it not the Australians who told the Iranians to Feck Off when they tried to seize some boats off them.
Another way of looking at it is that the Chinky Stormtroopers were doing the job our boys in blue could'nt/would'nt.

Hat & Coat please :p
 
#18
I'll be honest with you. I wouldn't mind some PRC-style policing in the UK. Why? Because they rarely have street crime that goes unpunished and anti-social behaviour is almost unheard of. It ain't heard for long when it does occur, that I can tell you.

I wouldn't trust their detection of crime that much, particularly where the powerful and connected are concerned, but then we're not exactly on the moral high ground in that respect, are we?
 
#19
To be honest the thought of 'gooks' from PRC being sanctioned to deal with matters such as this on our capital's streets appalls me. However, being overseas, I did not see any coverage of the 31 mile trip.

It is our right as 'free people' (we are only just free aren't we?-no thanks to the likes of Bliar, Broon and the other 'Big Bruvvers") to carry out peaceful demonstrations and protests. But if the protesters over-stepped the mark and got a helping hand (fist) to get out of the way; that is, as they say, the price they must pay; be it from a bobby or not.

The thought of some poncing twit whining about being shoved, be he a Lord or not, really makes me mad; is this what we want the world's press to see, a skinny, whiney, runt bleating on about being bullied?

It was well known that there would be protests during the neo-nazi symbolism of running the torch, if the 'gooks' didn't like it well they should have fecked off and taken there MonoSodiumGlutamates with them.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Military History and Militaria 1

Similar threads

Top