“The police now think its perfectly ok to arrest people before they’ve even gone on a protest. Brilliant.”

When you have been indulged as the police have for the last 30 years by spineless, cowardly politicians who see the police as their own private army it is not surprising that they become more aggressive and obnoxious..

I’m afraid you’ve got this one wrong, Mr. Hundal. If you look at that footage the woman in question was pointing her finger. This finger was a clear provocation. It could have been used to make a rude gesture; it could have been poked forward – suddenly, aggressively – and taken someone’s eye out (remember, the officer was not wearing a riot helmet to protect his face); it could have been used to direct lurking anarchist shock-troops in a surprise attack against a weak point in the ‘thin blue line’. The officer had to act quickly and decisively and thus gave the rampaging giantess a sound thrashing. Fortune favours the brave.

Also, she was wearing a ‘baseball’ style cap. How vulgar!

“….So eventually the IPCC did turn up CCTV footage which wasn’t available for earlier some reason….”

Oh be fair!

It would probably take the police this long to ‘Photoshop” out any incriminating evidence against them prior to releasing it to the IPCC.

I bet the shares in Whitewash production companies must be soaring on this news.

This is un – F*****g – believable in this day and age that we should be witnessing this kind of policing on the streets of Britain.

This is BRITAIN FFS!……………..Not CHINA!

Christ if we don’t rid ourselves of this Corrupt Labour Government soon, then we can kiss democracy goodbye for good.

Who would have thought that George Orwell was writing a prophecy rather than a work of fiction when he published ’1984′.

For every such incident caught on camera, how many slip by?

And good on The Times. This story isn’t going to tell Guardian or Indy readers anything they don’t know and will be more effective coming from a conservative source.

“The police now think its perfectly ok to arrest people before they’ve even gone on a protest”

Weren’t the Rozzers gonna gonna do them for “conspiracy to trespass” or something along those lines?

I think the preemptive arrests of the protestors are definite proof the police are now employing those creepy precogs from Minority Report.

the footage is up over at The Third Estate (http://www.thethirdestate.net)

sorry i didnt realise it was on the times link – feel free to delete these posts.

According to the Beeb he’s been suspended.

The Register reports that police are collecting private CCTV footage from premises in the area.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/14/ipcc_u_turn/

ACPO get what they want, the rest of us suffer as a consequence. How has it come to this?
We have a Government in which there are repressive controlling elements who see the populace as something to fear, something that must be stamped upon for holding inconvenient opinions.

(sorry, didn’t close tab)

Even members of the Tory establishment – here’s Dominic Lawson for example – are taking this up:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6078451.ece

I wonder what excuses LFAT will come up with this time?!

What makes anyone think that the conservatives wil be any better? They are as authoritarian as Labour. Apart from David Davis and the genuinely honourably Richard Shepherd, just who has consistently spoken, let alone voted, against the extensions of state power? As sally said the police have been indulged for 30 years to the point for example that the request for 42 days to question suspects was a kite taken seriously by government.

On one partcular point, I notice that the present officer under suspension was a Sergeant. As he is in charge of officers, does the absence of any identification on his uniform mean either this is accepted as proper by the police or are they out of control?

“What makes anyone think that the conservatives wil be any better? They are as authoritarian as Labour. ”

What does it matter? Aside from the fact that the Tories do have a better recent record on civil liberties than Labour do, using the possibility that the Tories will be “no better” is no reason to accept any kind of Labour administration next election.

I saw that cop, tried to take a pic of him attacking another woman but my camera was too slow. I did get a pic of him but like I said my camera was too slow. This protest was the one on the 2nd April re police brutality and the G20 death. The one where police, once again, demonstrated how out of control violent thugs they are …

Erm, on the subject of Conservative attitudes to civil liberties, I believe it was Michael Howard who, when Home Secretary, abolished the right to remain silent for suspect in the UK.

in the process, Howard removed a basic right against the risk of self incrimination (both guilty and innocent).

The Tory government from 1979-1997 (especially 1979-92) continuously increased the powers of police (noteably stop and search powers, disproportionately used against ethnic minorities) whilst erroding the democratic rights of ogranised labour so as to empower capital and the state.

I do not believe that David Cameron, George Osborne and the rest of the top Tory clique have any interest in civil liberties at all. For a start, they are all avowed Thacherites, who see the masses as something dirty to be controlled. Perhaps more importantly, Cameron and Osborne hail from a class – and educated in instititutions – who teach systematic disdain for class inferiors, holding the natural order of things to be top-down control.

One of the worst legacies of New Labour will be that as well as eroding civil liberties at an unprecedented rate on their own watch (continuing the work of those who governed before them) they gave carte blanche for their successors to do the same.

In summary: hang Jack Straw.

Thanks cjcjc, I see that you’ve already noticed my response today – suffice to say that people on this site might be a little disappointed with how reasoned it is.

On a related note, if the police have evidence that protestors are about to commit a crime, it would be totally irresponsible not to act. We shall find out soon enough how strong the evidence was…..

Get a grip. She took a baton on the back of the legs. We live in a brutal police state! What’s more she’s a woman! The inferior, fragile, fairer sex! Where are the feminists? Do you not see the irony of your attacks on tabloid hysteria, when you indulge in the same? Oh I see, you call yourselves ‘Liberals’, so that’s different.

Oh look, another ‘kin protest. This time its protesting against the management of protests. Anyone for a protest against the protest?

You sad bunch are diverting attention from the real issues. Instead of squealing because a crustie got a slap, you should be campaigning against the creep of the big brother State, with ID cards, children’s database, the DNA database, etc. This Govt and the EU enacts legislation every week that further erodes civil liberties. That’s where true liberals should be directing their anger.

Chavscum, we’re doing both…multitasking is fun.

To be fair, LC is campaigning against those things (apart from the EU which is generally felt to be a good thing becasue Tories generally dislike it).

The concern over policing is an extension of that concern, but also something more visceral and, as Mr Eugenides put it a few days ago, empathetic.
I live not much more than 500 yards from Bank.
I could have been walking home and got caught up.
Or, if moved to do so, might one day be protesting against ID cards.
Any one of those people hit could have been me.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Well, I’m totally surprised by the response from chavscum and LFAT!
And I thought they were paragons of liberal behaviour because they keep saying ‘call yourself liberals do you?’ – but that’s only used for their own agendas. When ordinary protesters in the street are being beaten up by the police it’s ok. Can’t wait for a Tory govt now!

The Police are an easy target for the likes of LC, because they wield little power and influence, yet are on the frontline. They have a documented line of accountability. Whereas, the Govt and the EU are only accountable to the voters every 4/5 yrs and in the case of the EU, they can do what they please. Ambitious mediarites and commentators rely on Govt for info and for patronisation. They need the Govt more than the Govt needs them. Consequently, their criticism is superficial at most and mute at worst.

I think this is evident on this site. There must be 10 threads on the G20 protesters. Its harder to target those creating and implementing the legislation and doing so may effect some people’s career prospects. Its easier to target those at the bottom of the pile.

To be fair, LFAT is essentially suggesting waiting until the IPCC report before concluding that she was “beaten up”.

“they wield little power and influence”

They wield batons, though. At the point at which a baton hits my head, my liberty is infringed more seriously than by any amount of legislation on ID cards or control orders.

(And anyway, are you serious? One of the most oft-repeated allegations on civil liberties against the Labour government is that it just gives the police whatever they ask for – so I reckon they probably wield quite a lot of influence.)

LFAT. You scum. There is a video of a policeman beating her. It’s there for all to see. What if that was your wife, or your daughter? I’m assuming you aren’t ugly enough to prevent procreation, as it doesn’t stop a lot of Tories. I’m guessing if at a protest to repeal the hunting ban or the smoking ban or to reintroduce Section 28, said wife or daughter came along and got bashed by the police for “aggressively waving a finger” at one of the coppers, you’d be just as spineless and say the police had every right to do so?

LfaT, your articles on Tomlison and this new video seem to excuse the prima facie unlawful use of force by the police officers on the grounds that they were provoked in some way.

If any wife or daughter of mine thinks that harrassing and provoking a police officer in riot gear is a good idea, then I can 100% guarantee you that sympathy will be extremely limited.

Like cjcjc, my post was about the difficulties of defining a ‘proportionate’ response. If you’d read it, you’d understand that instead of getting hysterical which – as Chavsum said – is getting incredibly common on this site.

Sunny, if “ordinary protesters” behave like this then one can only imagine how a “provocative”, “aggressive” or “harrassing” protestor would behave in your eyes. Totally irrespective of how the officer reacted, this woman was completely out of order.

Yes, she had the cheek to shout at a man who slapped her across the face.

Can’t you see that your so far out of line on this that even the other Tories who comment here are disowning you?

Shorter LFAT: “Bitch had it coming.”

Its evident she is behaving in a provocative and aggressive manner to the policeman, which may incite others in a highly charged atmosphere. She shouts, “I’m a woman”. Well, get back to the fucking dishes then! What happened to equality, eh?

There is already only tiny public support for these protesters. People like her will just reduce it even more.

I read she’s now claiming to be “traumatised” by the event. Looks like ££££s in her eyes. She could be a money grabbing anti-capitalist.

If any wife or daughter of mine thinks that harrassing and provoking a police officer in riot gear is a good idea, then I can 100% guarantee you that sympathy will be extremely limited.

Like the idea of men beating women do you? Bit like that other Tory of yours, Andrew Pelling, then? Slap ‘em around a bit for disrespecting the big strong powerful man of authority?

Well, get back to the fucking dishes then!

Ah, another Tory-loving wife-beater. Sounds like you wished it had been you “administering” the punishment to her.

Well, I dunno, I remember that Sunny believes violence is a reasonable response to some verbal provocations.

Needless to say, we might be able to understand an individual policeman’s response (not necessarily well trained, stuck in heavy riot gear, told they are protecting the realm etc..) without justifying their actions. We just need to be attuned to the factors encouraging that response and in the end, much of that lies with government policy.

The central point of all this has to be the way in which current methods of policing create the conditions in which both protesters and police with poor self-control (but mainly police) confront/abuse others. It’s that we want to see an answer to more than a witch-hunt against individuals (although they should face assault charges imo).

cjcjc @13:

What do you mean ‘even’? The Tory establishment invented this approach, at least as far as the modern era is concerned. Both the Tory and the Labour governments in the 50s could rely on two generations of militarisation in common society; people did what they were told and thought hierarchically. When they broke that mould in the 60s, and on into the 70s, successive administrations were reined in by popular protest, comprehensive strike action and so on. Yes, if you happened to be a peacenik, black, Irish or a traveller then the police got to vent the full power of their anger on you, but if you were a white working man the government would get scared and cave: considerably faster in the case of Labour governments.

Then came Thatcher and Bloody Stupid JohnsonScargill. He overreached himself politically; Thatcher seized the opportunity and sent in the heavies in answer to any protest against her policies. The aggressiveness of police in confronting such violent anarchists as the Stonehenge Free Festival crowd (including women, small children and at least one peer of the realm) was government sponsored, government initiated and government planned. And they got away with it.

Unfortunately, Labour then bought the model wholesale. If people are protesting, there is no longer even an assessment made as to whether they’re right. The only assessment now made is as to the current media climate: how hard can we take them down before the print and television media start to care? They thought they could get away with it with JCdeM: they knew they could get away with it against Milwall fans: they were fairly sure they could get away with it against Pro-Test rallys in Oxford and they were absolutely certain they could get away with it against Ian Tomlinson.

… Labour are politically bankrupt for stealing the Conservatives’ policies and world-view, but don’t mistake effect for cause. Labour are this way because Thatcher proved that post-80s Britain you can win this way. It’s always been easier to be an autocrat than a democrat; if you can get away with it.

Chavscum @24:

The Police are an easy target for the likes of LC, because they wield little power and influence,

… goodness.

Please, please, go and read up on the history of British policing since 1939. The power of the police is the only reason to have them in the first place. They can physically go around and fuck you up and they’re the only people in the country who can do so legally. Well, were. Now bailiffs can as well.

Their influence can be seen when one looks at government consultation strategies on any issue which can be seen as ‘law and order’ or ‘public morality’. Or at the UK licensing laws: Hackney Police automatically reject every single, I mean every single, application as a matter of policy (their objection can be withdrawn later, and usually is; it cannot be overruled, except under unusual and extremely expensive circumstances). It gives them 100% power to choose who can operate in a pub and who can’t; which according to the law should be a power of the Council licensing committee. And so on and further.

On one thing, however, I agree with you completely. The individual officers who assault protesting citizens should be prosecuted and in at least the case of Tomlinson that may actually happen. But the officers on the street are not who we, the people, should be going after.

As I have said in many comments on this site, also here, here, and here, the frontline police officers are not the main focus of my ire. Specific officers caught committing specific crimes (i.e. aggravated assault and ABH in the case of the recent one) should be punished. Lots of precedent there. But none of this was the fault of the beat coppers. It was police from above.

The regular cops were briefed, directed, controlled. That’s what they do. They were briefed to expect a summer of rage; well, they’ve certainly started one. They were briefed that all protesters in the City are violent anarchists: which was not only not true, it was a ludicrously dangerous mistake to make [1]. They were briefed that the kettling tactic was appropriate and necessary: which is at the very least debatable, if not outright risible. They were told to be “up for it”; anyone who’s been through a UK primary school knows what that means. It means the playground bully thinks you might fight back and wants a chance to make an example of someone.

Then, the police were forced to stand in one place (I’m thinking of Climate Camp here) and watch while their opponents, who were supposed to be violent anarchists, sat down and had a party with a bike-powered stereo. That must have been hideously frustrating for people who’d been whipped up to battle-pitch by their senior officers. It must have been seriously tedious, as well. After the fiasco up at the Bank was dealt with, they moved a bunch of TSG officers from there to Climate Camp and said “Right, go sic ‘em”. Noticeably, waiting ’til they’d squeezed out everyone with an NUJ card first. And that was clearly co-incidental. Obviously. Why else wait ’til 0130 for the final assault?

Don’t let the street coppers take the fall. We should be after the Labour government, we should be after the Commissioner, we should be after the policy makers. Yes, individual hired men should be prosecuted for their crimes; but their political and reactionary masters are the ones to whom culpability should be ascribed.

[1] I am rather charitably assuming the senior officers had such bad intelligence they genuinely believed this to be true. As I am even more disturbed by the implications of the only alternative.

33 Delboy: Like the idea of men beating women do you? Bit like that other Tory of yours, Andrew Pelling, then? Slap ‘em around a bit for disrespecting the big strong powerful man of authority?

Sunny, I’m wondering why this comment has been let through your moderation process? I didn’t think this is the kind of material you wanted in discussions on LC, especially after all the complaints about Guido’s comment threads that I’ve seen here and elsewhere, but I could be wrong.

“The central point of all this has to be the way in which current methods of policing create the conditions in which both protesters and police with poor self-control (but mainly police) confront/abuse others. It’s that we want to see an answer to more than a witch-hunt against individuals (although they should face assault charges imo).”

How about the protesters looking at themselves and their actions? There is literally a demo in central London every week. How many injuries have been reported over the last 5yrs? How many complaints have been registered against the Police? Let me see, oh look, its only when there is the annual anti-capitalist, miltant leftie, rent-a-mob get together. You really are deluded. It just reminds me of some English football fans complaining about Police brutality when travelling abroad. Nothing to do with the minority going for a tear-up, or the previous experience, of course.

I can tell you for a fact that police action at smaller demos is often intimidating and disproportionate too, but for them to act in such a violent way usually takes a larger crowd, and the apparation of anonymity.

If you ever find yourself in that situation, you’ll understand.

And of course police are less likely to act violently when the march is the institutional left (trade unions with press officers and lawyers) or middle-class people who they don’t want to alienate. It doesn’t surprise anyone that they can get away with more heavy-handed tactics when the protesters are anti-capitalist.

As soon as this pub closes… the revolution starts.
That would explain the government’s enthusiasm for 24-hour drinking.

You’re excusing violence on an unarmed woman LFAT – for that you deserve the abuse you get.

nick – nice attempt at whataboutery.

“And of course police are less likely to act violently when the march is the institutional left (trade unions with press officers and lawyers) or middle-class people who they don’t want to alienate. It doesn’t surprise anyone that they can get away with more heavy-handed tactics when the protesters are anti-capitalist.”

What about the Countryside Alliance march – full of Tory voting country dwellers?

As I said how many complaints and injuries from other protests?

This woman is holding a camera whilst bating the Police; just like many others there. They are seeking confrontation for publicity for their non-event and to undermine the authority of the State for their pathetic, immature political agenda.

Police behave aggressively all over the country, mostly duly, but sometimes unnecessarily. As you are only complaining about the treatment of your leftie agitator comrades, you are hypocrites.

“You’re excusing violence on an unarmed woman”

I see play the disabled card.

What disabled card, Chav?

The copper was a foot, foot and half taller than her, must have weighed twice what she did, he backhanded her and then hit her with a baton!

You do that to your own teen and you are off to the cells, NotW on your doorstep along with hundreds of other paparazzi interviewing ever single person on the street and the kid is in care.

A copper does it and it’s all fine as she was ‘protesting’ waving a deadly, waggy finger and trying to say something to him – what was she pointing at, by the way? Something off to her right.

But that’s fine – so long as he/she has a uniform on it’s OK.

Chavscum @38:

How about the protesters looking at themselves and their actions? There is literally a demo in central London every week. How many injuries have been reported over the last 5yrs?

And how many were caused by the police?

Also: ‘literally’? Yes. In fact, there’s usually several, in that at least one has been there non-stop now for some 5 years. It’s one guy in a tent.

But that’s not what you meant to imply, is it? You meant people to believe that there was a demonstration on the scale of the G20 demos. Which there most certainly is not one of “literally every week”. I live here: I’d notice.

How many complaints have been registered against the Police? Let me see, oh look, its only when there is the annual anti-capitalist, militant leftie, rent-a-mob get together.

You mean, people who know the law and their rights, have highly trained communications skills for getting the word out, and administrative experience for co-ordinating effective political responses? Why yes, those people are the ones who tend to be in the van when it comes to stopping the police beating up everyone. The main reason it is no longer considered acceptable for a copper to handcuff a working-class lad to a radiator and then beat the shit out of him is that the middle-class shouted at the government for 10 years.

It just reminds me of some English football fans complaining about Police brutality when travelling abroad. Nothing to do with the minority going for a tear-up, or the previous experience, of course.

Ok, let’s do this one again. Firstly, I dispute your statement ‘a minority’. It was not a minority of British fans traveling in Europe who wanted a fight in the 90s. Fans implies match tickets: this was organised gangs of men who had no interest in attending the match. They organised their riots for just prior to final whistle, to guarantee that most of the policing was still focussed on the ground. They organised in mobs of thousands who traveled in their own coaches, hired at their expense, but did not have match tickets at all.

So we’re actually talking about a clearly distinguishable set of people: fans are inside the stadium, hooligans are in the bars and clubs. We’re also talking about organised armies (that’s their phrase not mine) wearing livery (no shirt, St. George’s Flag tattoo, usually with an added bulldog) invading European nations with the specific and sole aim of causing damage. Now, I appreciate that you think that’s what was happening in London two weeks ago. All I can ask you to do is read this.

Now, let’s get onto your repeated attempts to gain a moral high-ground by claiming the Left don’t care about police violence against football fans. Please read this. Pay particular attention to sentences like:

“The pub was surrounded by police and the supporters imprisoned before each one of them was required to sign Section 27 forms on pain of arrest. According to Dr Clark some of these forms contained false statements by the police.”

“Using the Human Rights Act, Liberty has taken up the fight on behalf of the Stoke supporters.”

The Left does care. The Grauniad published the story, Liberty picked up the case and they’re actively supporting the football fans. Also, note that they’re supporting football fans. Not football hooligans. Equally, “we” are able to support (for example) Climate Camp, but are inclined to be very angry at (for example) the idiots who happy-slapped a bank.

Now: could you please accept that your ad hominems are missing their mark and engage with us over the actual issues?