Picture this scene: a peaceful protest, with a group made up of women and men of all ages. Two of the women - both mothers, one of a single-parent family - have cameras, because the police have been known to have taken a bit of a heavy-handed approach in the past. They are part of an organisation called FitWatch, which monitors police activity and films officers in order to have a record so that complaints can be made if police act in a way that may be unlawful.
When the people with the cameras arrive, the police immediately identify them as members of FitWatch. You can't help but get the impression that the officers consider them to be a nuisance, though none of them say as much. One of the women notices that one policeman isn't wearing the numbers on his shoulder which, by law, he and all officers must wear while on uniformed duty so that he or she can be accurately identified by a member of the public in case of a complaint. She approaches the officer and asks him to identify himself but he refuses, claiming wrongly that he does not have to give that information. The woman replies, saying that he does. At no time is she aggressive and what's more she's correct - when asked by a member of the public, a police officer must identify himself unless he or she is engaged in a plain-clothes operation. She asks her colleague to photograph the policeman. This is not illegal, but another officers blocks the camera.
But the policeman doesn't identify himself. Instead, he grabs her by the throat and she is roughly forced to the ground and arrested. The other woman is treated in the same way - one officer grasps her by a pressure point in her neck and drags her away. Somebody else - a police officer - is filming the incident with a video camera - the footage clearly shows that one officer has placed his full weight on the woman's ankle, which is painfully twisted on the ground. She asks him to step off her because he is hurting her - he denies that he is standing on her foot.
Both women are bundled into a police van and taken to a police station where they are charged with obstructing officers and refused bail. They are denied their right to speak to a solicitor and held for four days, three of them in prison, though all charges are later dropped.
Where do you think this happened? Iran? North Korea? Saudi Arabia?
It's Kent, in southern England, where campaigners have been protesting at Kingsnorth Power Station, where two new coal-fired generator units are due to be installed, massively increasing the amount of pollution emitted by the facility - a proposal that has drawn widespread criticism from a number of environmental groups including Greenpeace, the WWF and the RSPB.
A complaint has been made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission who are now looking at this video. It is to be hoped that the officers involved will be identified, sacked and prosecuted - they have shown themselves to be aggressive, violent thugs and there is no place in an organisation that is supposed to protect the public for them.
Showing posts with label protests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protests. Show all posts
22/06/2009
10/06/2009
BNP's Nick Griffin once again targeted by protestors
The British National Party leader Nick Griffin, who held a private press conference today after yesterday's attempt was disrupted by egg-throwing anti-fascist protestors, has once again been targeted by campaigners. Interestingly, the BNP Chronicle (which in the interest of fairness we should point out bills itself as "a non-official British National Party website" and as such does not necessarily reflect the views of party members) claims that yesterday's event fell victim to "up to 200" protestors while the mainstream media - including the Daily Telegraph, the BBC and the Times - favour a figure of around 50 to 100 people.
Today's conference, during which Mr. Griffin claimed that he planned to represent all constituents "regardless of their creed or colour" - which contrasts with his earlier comments as mentioned by Krishnan Guru-Murthy while interviewing BNP MEP-elect Andrew Brons on Channel 4 News recently that he would not represent ethnic minorities - was held in Manchester's Ace of Diamonds pub, which was surrounded by around 40 protestors (which translates as "80 violent communists", in BNPChroniclespeak) who chanted anti-BNP slogans and played Bob Marley songs.
"I think it's very sad that a hostile mob which is partly paid for by taxpayers and backed by Labour and the Conservatives is allowed to get away with mob violence on the streets of Britain in 2009," said Mr. Griffin. Mob violence? Throwing a few eggs doesn't really count as violence, does it? You could even argue it has a long and honourable history in democratic nations where it is one of the few ways that the public can draw attention to their dislike of politicians. What with the BNP suddenly transforming - or so they like to pretend - into a democratic party, you'd have thought Nick would appreciate that sort of thing...but then he does like it, of course, because despite his claim at today's conference that he wants "to get away from the publicity. It's been fun while it's lasted," he very obviously wants as much publicity as he can possibly get - especially if it's the sort of publicity that gives him an opportunity to paint himself as the victim and actual democrats, who are opposed to fascism, as the aggressors. After yesterday's protest, Mr. Griffin called the incident "disgraceful" and said that he had every right to hold press conferences and voice his opinions - as have those who disagree with him. Let's hope everyone who is not in support of the BNP continues to exercise that right - because they won't have it for long if the party ever wins a General Election.
Today's conference, during which Mr. Griffin claimed that he planned to represent all constituents "regardless of their creed or colour" - which contrasts with his earlier comments as mentioned by Krishnan Guru-Murthy while interviewing BNP MEP-elect Andrew Brons on Channel 4 News recently that he would not represent ethnic minorities - was held in Manchester's Ace of Diamonds pub, which was surrounded by around 40 protestors (which translates as "80 violent communists", in BNPChroniclespeak) who chanted anti-BNP slogans and played Bob Marley songs.
"I think it's very sad that a hostile mob which is partly paid for by taxpayers and backed by Labour and the Conservatives is allowed to get away with mob violence on the streets of Britain in 2009," said Mr. Griffin. Mob violence? Throwing a few eggs doesn't really count as violence, does it? You could even argue it has a long and honourable history in democratic nations where it is one of the few ways that the public can draw attention to their dislike of politicians. What with the BNP suddenly transforming - or so they like to pretend - into a democratic party, you'd have thought Nick would appreciate that sort of thing...but then he does like it, of course, because despite his claim at today's conference that he wants "to get away from the publicity. It's been fun while it's lasted," he very obviously wants as much publicity as he can possibly get - especially if it's the sort of publicity that gives him an opportunity to paint himself as the victim and actual democrats, who are opposed to fascism, as the aggressors. After yesterday's protest, Mr. Griffin called the incident "disgraceful" and said that he had every right to hold press conferences and voice his opinions - as have those who disagree with him. Let's hope everyone who is not in support of the BNP continues to exercise that right - because they won't have it for long if the party ever wins a General Election.
15/05/2009
Met. Police face further probe over death of G20 Tomlinson
The Independent Police Complaints Commission will hold a further investigation into the Metroplitan Police's conduct following the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in April this year, it has been announced. This will be separate from existing enquiries into his death and police conduct during the protest.
Mr. Tomlinson, 47, was returning home from his job as a newspaper vendor when he was hit with a baton and pushed from behind by officers, an incident that was captured on video and has been instrumental in probes into harsh police actions during the protests. There has been no evidence that he was in any way involved with the protests. He later died of internal injuries.
Ian Tomlinson, who was not involved with the G20 protests, was struck and
pushed to the ground by police officers. He later died of internal injuries.
CCTV footage showed that he had earlier approached a police cordon and appeared to ask to be allowed through so that he could continue making his way home, but permission was refused. A City worker also supplied photographs showing Mr. Tomlinson earlier in the day talking to officers after a police vehicle had come into contact with him - however, this has been referred to as a "gentle nudge" and is not thought to have contributed to his injuries.
During the inquest into his death, police made no mention of their earlier contact with the man leading many to accuse them of either deliberately misinformed the public or failed to make information available. IPCC deputy chairman Deborah Glass has said that both members of the public and MPs have raised serious concerns about the "state of knowledge" that police had concerning the incident.
If found guilty of either charge, the investigation will come as a serious blow to the Met's reputation which fallen steeply in public eyes since the events in question, with many people feeling angry over accusations that officers purposely obscured their badges - allowing them to commit unlawful acts without risking identification - and incited violent actions amongst members of the public, thus enabling them to react with greater force than would otherwise have been deemed acceptable, which is likely to bring about further enquiries and calls for a reform of police powers and regulations.
Mr. Tomlinson, 47, was returning home from his job as a newspaper vendor when he was hit with a baton and pushed from behind by officers, an incident that was captured on video and has been instrumental in probes into harsh police actions during the protests. There has been no evidence that he was in any way involved with the protests. He later died of internal injuries.
Ian Tomlinson, who was not involved with the G20 protests, was struck and pushed to the ground by police officers. He later died of internal injuries.
CCTV footage showed that he had earlier approached a police cordon and appeared to ask to be allowed through so that he could continue making his way home, but permission was refused. A City worker also supplied photographs showing Mr. Tomlinson earlier in the day talking to officers after a police vehicle had come into contact with him - however, this has been referred to as a "gentle nudge" and is not thought to have contributed to his injuries.
During the inquest into his death, police made no mention of their earlier contact with the man leading many to accuse them of either deliberately misinformed the public or failed to make information available. IPCC deputy chairman Deborah Glass has said that both members of the public and MPs have raised serious concerns about the "state of knowledge" that police had concerning the incident.
If found guilty of either charge, the investigation will come as a serious blow to the Met's reputation which fallen steeply in public eyes since the events in question, with many people feeling angry over accusations that officers purposely obscured their badges - allowing them to commit unlawful acts without risking identification - and incited violent actions amongst members of the public, thus enabling them to react with greater force than would otherwise have been deemed acceptable, which is likely to bring about further enquiries and calls for a reform of police powers and regulations.
10/05/2009
Did the police incite violence at the G20 protests?
You need to know about this.
Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) has gone on record to claim that he saw plain-clothes police officers deliberately inciting protestors at the G20 Summit demonstrations to commit acts of violence, according to a story featured by The Guardian. He will raise the issue during a Parliament joint committee on human rights this Tuesday.
"When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, 'There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police," says the MP. His report on the incident includes statements from eye-witnesses including photographer Tony Amos, who was with protestors at the Royal Exchange. "He [one of the alleged officers] was egging protesters on. It was very noticeable," Amos claims in his statement. "Then suddenly a protester seemed to identify him as a policeman and turned on him. He legged it towards the police line, flashed some ID and they just let him through, no questions asked."
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has received 256 complaints relating to the protests, but states that none of them have been reports of officers encouraging protestors to act unlawfully.
Brake, who was held within a corralled crowd for five hours, says that just a few people were allowed to leave the group duing the time he was in it and as a result it should be a simple matter to examine video footage of the incident to gather more information.
If it is proved that this is the case, what does it mean? Obviously, it would demonstrate that the police are guilty of using entrapment. It would also mean that they deliberately provoked violence, possibly in order to allow them to attack British civilians. This incident must be looked at very carefully, and if the police are shown to have acted in this way then there needs to be major changes - the foremost purpose of the police is to protect and prevent harm to civilians, not to protect businesses and their property. In nations less complacent than our own, revolutions have started over less than this.
Were you at the G20 protests? Did you see anything untoward? Leave a comment - people need to know.
Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) has gone on record to claim that he saw plain-clothes police officers deliberately inciting protestors at the G20 Summit demonstrations to commit acts of violence, according to a story featured by The Guardian. He will raise the issue during a Parliament joint committee on human rights this Tuesday.
"When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, 'There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police," says the MP. His report on the incident includes statements from eye-witnesses including photographer Tony Amos, who was with protestors at the Royal Exchange. "He [one of the alleged officers] was egging protesters on. It was very noticeable," Amos claims in his statement. "Then suddenly a protester seemed to identify him as a policeman and turned on him. He legged it towards the police line, flashed some ID and they just let him through, no questions asked."
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has received 256 complaints relating to the protests, but states that none of them have been reports of officers encouraging protestors to act unlawfully.
Brake, who was held within a corralled crowd for five hours, says that just a few people were allowed to leave the group duing the time he was in it and as a result it should be a simple matter to examine video footage of the incident to gather more information.
If it is proved that this is the case, what does it mean? Obviously, it would demonstrate that the police are guilty of using entrapment. It would also mean that they deliberately provoked violence, possibly in order to allow them to attack British civilians. This incident must be looked at very carefully, and if the police are shown to have acted in this way then there needs to be major changes - the foremost purpose of the police is to protect and prevent harm to civilians, not to protect businesses and their property. In nations less complacent than our own, revolutions have started over less than this.
Were you at the G20 protests? Did you see anything untoward? Leave a comment - people need to know.
08/05/2009
Police "must wear badges" says Chief Constable
Cambridgeshire Chief Constable Julie Spence tackled public concerns over police tactics during the recent G20 protests in her latest podcast. Several people were injured in the protests and one man, Ian Tomlinson, died after being hit and pushed to the ground by an officer. The incident was filmed and clearly shows that he was not acting in an aggressive manner. Eye-witnesses have claimed that the officers had obscured their identification -to me, the video does not appear to confirm this, but the officer seen striking Mr. Tomlinson can clearly be seen to be masked.
"Your judgement of us, on the other hand, may be based on something as simple as appearance," says Mrs. Spence. "All of this counts - and is one reason, I suspect, that people seemed so concerned about officers failing to display their numbers at the G2o summit protests, and why our decision in Cambridgeshire to put full names on epaulettes seems generally welcome. It demonstrates, in my view, an openness and fairness in policing."
Well bugger me - a copper who talks sense!
Well, bugger me - a copper talking sense, that's something that you don't come across too often nowadays (if indeed you ever did). She's quite right, too - the police force's reputation has taken almost as much of a hammering as poor old Mr. Tomlinson in recent years, what with the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry's findings and Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot seven times by officers using hollow-point dum-dum bullets (which are designed to incapacitate a target with a single successful hit) on the London Underground. Many people now fear the police and are hostile to them, which is bad news for all of us - fear is not the same thing as respect; and the police desperately need to regain our respect.
To do that, they must be 100% open in everything they do, they must be entirely honest and each and every officer must be accountable for his or her actions. A police officer who obscures his or her identity, unless doing so is part of an activity that requires it such as an undercover investigation into drug dealing, has something to hide. Something for which he or she does not want to blamed - in other words, something that he or she should not be doing and which is in all likelihood illegal. Why have they been allowed to get away with doing this? Why are they allowed to get away with wearing masks?
Famously, when the police break the law, there is no law. That's a quote that can be read in two ways - it can mean that when an officer breaks the law, prosecution will not result; but it can also be taken to mean that when an officer breaks the law, law and order begins to break down. The police must not be allowed to act in this way. If the uniforms need to be redesigned to prevent identification from slipping off (see that last link) then so be it - the cost is unimportant, it is a necessity that all officers can be accurately identified by any member of the public.
"Your judgement of us, on the other hand, may be based on something as simple as appearance," says Mrs. Spence. "All of this counts - and is one reason, I suspect, that people seemed so concerned about officers failing to display their numbers at the G2o summit protests, and why our decision in Cambridgeshire to put full names on epaulettes seems generally welcome. It demonstrates, in my view, an openness and fairness in policing."
Well bugger me - a copper who talks sense!Well, bugger me - a copper talking sense, that's something that you don't come across too often nowadays (if indeed you ever did). She's quite right, too - the police force's reputation has taken almost as much of a hammering as poor old Mr. Tomlinson in recent years, what with the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry's findings and Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot seven times by officers using hollow-point dum-dum bullets (which are designed to incapacitate a target with a single successful hit) on the London Underground. Many people now fear the police and are hostile to them, which is bad news for all of us - fear is not the same thing as respect; and the police desperately need to regain our respect.
To do that, they must be 100% open in everything they do, they must be entirely honest and each and every officer must be accountable for his or her actions. A police officer who obscures his or her identity, unless doing so is part of an activity that requires it such as an undercover investigation into drug dealing, has something to hide. Something for which he or she does not want to blamed - in other words, something that he or she should not be doing and which is in all likelihood illegal. Why have they been allowed to get away with doing this? Why are they allowed to get away with wearing masks?
Famously, when the police break the law, there is no law. That's a quote that can be read in two ways - it can mean that when an officer breaks the law, prosecution will not result; but it can also be taken to mean that when an officer breaks the law, law and order begins to break down. The police must not be allowed to act in this way. If the uniforms need to be redesigned to prevent identification from slipping off (see that last link) then so be it - the cost is unimportant, it is a necessity that all officers can be accurately identified by any member of the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
