More evidence of New Labour Police State

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by nigegilb, Jun 22, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Bet they wouldn't have dared do that if these ladies had been of an ethnic persuasion 8O
     
  2. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Bl00dy good on them. Are they going to sue for false arrest and imprisonment?
     
  3. OB have always been rough. The difference is now that everybody has a digital camera and newspapers are online. Some cops are too stupid or too arrogant/indisciplined to realise that battering articulate and media savvy members of the public on camera is a bit of a no no these days.

    Even dragging semi literate chavs up an alley for a well deserved hiding is a bad idea given the prevalence of CCTV.
     
  4. yes how much media training had they gone through before they released the footage to be used, they both seemed very calm during that video commentating on the events the typical media training of keeping the voice soft and slow etc....

    Yes the police were a bit heavy handed,what was said before the clip was shown though? Fit watch don't want police monitoring any demonstrations, but they film police and collect their numbers, so they can fabricate complaints themselves?
    both mothers at least one a single mum, where were their kids while they go demonstrating as well?
     
  5. The footage was police surveillance footage obtained under FOI. If you think their behaviour deserved body cuffing I feel sorry for you. I suggest the reason for the non-confrontational lowering of tone of voice was to avoid being arrested. They were arrested for attempting to photograph police officers who were not displaying their numbers. They were subsequently handled around the neck by thuggish police officers.
     
  6. It seems to kick off because she calmly asks for a policemans number.

    What is wrong with that?

    Looking at the vid on tv it does seem as if many officers have no numbers on display.

    Is that not against Home Office regs?

    One reason for a number is, for me, an indicator of someone with authority and the ability to offer help if I or my children need it.

    No proper id makes for trouble.
     
  7. I wouldn't trust most 'professional protesters' an inch. I can sympathise with an otherwise decent copper who turns round and gives one a slap - especially after working back to back shifts for a few days and being systematically provoked by arschlochs who think it is their natural right to antagonise anybody in uniform.

    I also think that there is a thug element in OB who look for opportunities to fill people in, they are dangerous because when they are allowed to set the tone, others will quickly follow. That was also something I saw a lot in the army. It all boils down to strong and effective leadership, which seems to be a bit of a problem in the police at the moment.
     
  8. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Considering this is a police vid and that the cameraman reminded plod that they were on camera I am surprised at the actions of the police team. From that evidence, and lets not be in any doubt here that will only be part of the final story, the cops are on a hiding to nothing.

    Arresting someone for asking a police officer to identify themselves is a bit OTT. However, regardless of what happened and the actions of the arresting officers, the most telling part is that at no point did a senior officer, or the officer in charge of the incident come forward and identify him/herself. Neither did anyone take charge of the situation thus permitting what appears to be a c ock up by plod to take place.

    4 days in nick, so I presume this happened at a weekend/bank holiday. Nonetheless this should mount up to a nice little claim for the two 'ladies'.

    One last point, I thought that identifying oneself as a police officer was a standard action. What is wrong with giving your number, especially as the whole thing is being captured on camera!?
     
  9. ACAB

    Arrogant facist b'stards.
     
  10. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    It's a tricky one this. We've always had this impression of protesters always being violent, smelly 'swampies' or their families, climbing fences, hugging trees and generally being horrible.

    I think that these days, this is not necessarily always the case. There's more and more things to protest about these days, and I've seen a few where perfectly ordinary people (including my mum) have felt compelled to attend.

    At these and other events, we should be rather chuffed that it is not only the police filling their databases with images and videos of 'malcontents', ne'er do wells' and 'subversives' - there is no harm whatsoever in people attending these protests filming and photographing the police in turn, to ensure that if THEY break the law, as sometimes happens, there is the evidence to back it up. It's rather amusing that in this case, it was the police's own video footage that was used against them.

    Funny also, how in this particular case, the one without the badge number on his epaulettes was the one sticking his fingers into the woman's neck - competely unecessarily. That sort of behaviour would sure as hell get an unpleasant reaction from me, a law-abiding citizen - just as that sort of behaviour is designed to get an angry response - that way, the arrest can be justified.

    The police, if they aren't doing anything wrong, have nothing to fear from surveillance. :twisted:
     
  11. Then by any code of professionalism and ethics he isn't a decent copper!

    Suppose that man also is a specialist officer who is "called in" for extra duty?
    A pursuit driver/Instructor/Firearms by normal duty but making up the numbers on the day.

    How can you say he wouldn't "pop" in another situation?

    Would you trust him in his normal role?

    I couldn't.

    Policing is a tough job that demands the best and cannot allow for slips.

    (And I've worked with 3 differnt forces and generally support the police so this isn't a rant)
     
  12. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Just a thought - isn't it a bit sad that a: people should feel the need to film and photograph the police, b: they they believe they will get evidence of the police breaking the law, and c: they actually do.

    If the above wasn't the case, then there'd be more trust and better policing.

    Just a thought - and before anyone says so, I do respect the police, what they do, and whenever they and I have come into contact, they have behaved impeccably, so this isn't a rant either.
     
  13. I could sympathise with an otherwise decent bloke who lashes out in a stressful situation because I might do so myself. I'm not advocating police brutality or suggesting that a blind eye be turned to it when it occurs.
    As to whether an officer who assaulted a member of the public during a demonstration could be trusted in other stressful roles, I think that the only answer is that it would have to be considered on a case by case basis. The onus would have to be on the officer to prove that he wasn't a loose cannon or a thug. Probably, for the reputation and discipline of the force in question, he would have to go. But on a personal level I wouldn't condemn him too harshly.
     
  14. Having watched the, heavily edited with added "impartial" commentry, video I think there's more to this than just what the Guardian and these two ladies (with their own agenda lets not forget) are showing.

    Whilst, having been there myself, I have every sympathy for any police officer who has to put up with the antagonising behaviour of "professional protestors" like these, but what's the problem with giving them your number FFS?

    The officers involved in this are clearly PSU trained and should have an awareness of the tactics employed by people such as FIT watch and should be able to deal with it accordingly. It's just down to professionalism, just give them your number. Simples.

    That was what started the problems but the video doesn't show all the other behaviour displayed by these two ladies that resulted in their arrest and subsequent requirement for leg restraints and cuffs. The video cuts in and out quite regularly, the police camerman (Evidence Gatherer) wouldn't do that as they either keep it running or, if they do stop the tape, open each segment with a time update.

    Though I must admit I don't know why the one officer felt the need to use the mandibula angle (thumb in the neck/jaw). He did a crap job of it and it's only used to get some compliance from the subject. Though the holding her head up is justified as she'd previously hidden her face and a clear picture of it is needed for continuity of video evidence and identification purposes.

    But the main points of what I've seen on the website is.

    1) The video on the site is, unsurprisingly, heavily edited and biased.
    2) Some unprofessional behaviour is shown by the OB, just give them your number! It's not the end of the world, and if you're going to use pain compliance techniques use the right ones at the right time.
    3) These two ladies aren't quite as meek and mild as they make out. If you look at the fitwatch website it encourages it's members to "bash the FITs" amongst other tactics.