Unless you’ve seen police brutality firsthand you cannot believe it happens
Wednesday 1st April looked to be one of the few days in today’s money-worshipping, consumerist world where banking did not seem like the safest occupation. Ironically, despite the media hype about bankers being strung from lampposts and the impending violence of the G20 protests, it is still the bankers who have the support of the state while those attempting to assert their right to protest peacefully are subject to the aggression and violence of the British police force.
The daytime protests have received significant media coverage but there has been less focus on the events on the night at the Climate Camp set up in Bishopsgate. Climate Camp was a literal camp out in the square mile, the financial centre, of London. Hundreds slept on the streets and hung banners protesting the removal of climate change from the g20 agenda and attempting to raise environmental awareness. The event was promoted as peaceful, non-violent and, critically, light hearted in nature, and there had been no clashes between the police and the Climate Campers during the day despite reported tension after the ‘Swoop’ on London.
I travelled to Liverpool Street Station late in the evening in an attempt to join the band of campers. The atmosphere on the street was enjoyably shambolic with various long haired characters sitting on the pavement; it felt more like a street party than a protest. The only incongruous addition to the amicable atmosphere was the double row of policeman and police vans blocking the entrance to the Camp. This in itself surprised me as the ratio of policemen to protesters seemed disproportionately high and they were preventing us from entering the Camp without explanation. I wondered why it was necessary to have police in full riot gear for an entirely peaceful protest. After an hour of waiting the atmosphere grew increasingly tense as the police began to line up and address the crowd over loudspeakers asking them to leave the area. More policeman arrived filling into a line with their shields up and some began to push forward forcing the crowd back, those who stayed seated and continued protesting were dragged along the ground out of the way.
Gradually the police pushed us further and further back, at first tentatively without using their shields and batons and then with heightened aggression. A tipping point was seeing a protester get too close to the police line and a policeman reacting by effortlessly reaching out and punching him in the face. I saw the man later on with blood dripping out of his nose, he looked as shocked as I felt. Those who tried to reason with the police, explaining to them that they did not intend to use violence, were met with sneers.
Looking up at the buildings around us, we were reminded that this is what the police will protect at any cost, this is what our government will sacrifice our civil liberties for: bankers who feed off the world’s resources and the world’s poorest people; those are the ones who can sleep safely. With the level of media distortion in commentaries on police activities and protest coverage it is easy to believe that there you cannot expect justice as a protester. If the government sacrifices the welfare of concerned citizens to play big boys on the international stage, and the police act as they please during such events then there are no systems in place to protect those who actually want to save the planet’s resources. It’s worrying that the real value of the government’s green agenda and their prioritisation only comes to light when push comes to shove.
Suddenly there was a push and the police were on us, waves upon waves of angry faces rolling towards the protesters striking and pushing the crowd. Even in the brief periods of calm when me and the other protesters would sit there was perpetual ugliness, one policeman leaned forward to a seated protester and told her ‘move or I’ll hurt you’. At one time I became seriously afraid as the police began to crush large swathes of people into an enclosed space against a building, it was very claustrophobic and there was a real danger of being crushed against a column. Me and my friend battled our way out and then stood for the last time against the dark line. The wrath of the police reached a climactic peak as they ran, I was hit in the face with a police shield and my friend was struck multiple times on the face and body. Not only are the police in these situations naturally aggressive, some are sadistic, one policeman kept hitting my friend, even if there was another protester in front of her he would reach round and club her. Finally we left, we might have got badly hurt if we’d stayed, or arrested. It was a despondent trip home on the tube, simultaneously enraged and weakened by what we’d witnessed. The truth is, unless you’ve seen unprovoked police brutality firsthand you cannot believe it happens.
In the wake of the death of the innocent bystander Ian Tomlinson, and the attempt by the police to suppress their part in this tragedy, it seems more people are willing to wake up to the aggression and corruption in our police force. A fellow climate camper once told me that before these events police are briefed that the likelihood is that the protesters will become violent, even if there has been no previous indication of violence from that group. This attitude needs to change. It cannot always be the rich and powerful who reap the benefits of the police force, everyone pays taxes and everyone has a right to the civil liberties we have fought for. The police are not evil, but what I saw that night at the protest terrified me. If we can communicate this terror and channel it into legitimate complaints and criticism then maybe we can change, for the sake of future protesters I hope that we can.
Loading ...
I couldn’t make it to the protests, but from what I’ve heard from friends who did as well as the images and video that have since surfaced, the behaviour of the police appears to have been brutal and unnacceptable. I hope that the officer that attacKed Tomlinson is brought to justice.
What I genuinely don’t understand about your piece can be summed up in what you wrote here: “If the government sacrifices the welfare of concerned citizens to play big boys on the international stage”
I had the same argument with my sister the other day, and this is the analogy I used: if my lecturer doesn’t like a fellow student because he’s always late and talks in lectures, and during the course of a lecture I decide to beat said student up because he won’t shut up, that doesn’t mean I am acting on the orders of the lecturer, or that the lecturer condones what I’m doing. You could (and should) criticise the lecturer if they subsequently don’t boot me out, but it’s not the lecturer’s fault I behaved completely unnacceptably: it’s mine.
The government’s civil rights record IS very poor – and most grassroots activists were outraged at the various anti-terrorism laws that the gov pushed for, including 42 days. But as horrific as the police’s actions those days was, it wasn’t Gordon Brown in riot gear. To be honest, I think your point about “playing big boys” is a bit silly. And finally, it’s not the gov’s job to investigate/punish the officer/s responsible, it’s that of the IPCC and the CPS.
This is a very interesting account, as with most controversial things my stance is shear ambivalence.
I agree that some of the police used excessive and misplaced force – particularly the description of your friend being beaten. But I still think that any person who felt threatened had some chances to leave the crowd.
If not while the crowd was being manoeuvred, then when the police requested people disperse:
”
After an hour of waiting the atmosphere grew increasingly tense as the police began to line up and address the crowd over loudspeakers
asking them to leave the area.
”
If people are prevented from peacefully gathering to protest then what other dramatic ways are there for them to express their views, and show their commitment by being present at the event?
From this account it sounds like the police have only prevented others joining the camp, rather than ending the camp itself. Even so, some of their methods sound brutal.
Someone told you that police are briefed that, “protesters will become violent, even if there has been no previous indication of violence from that group”. If a crowd of people is forcibly confined to a small region then instinctive violence from that crowd is almost inevitable. Although isolating the crowd from the camp may have prevented any violent/destructive protest taking place in the camp, surely it could lead to one somewhere else.
Having said this what alternative to violence did the police have? If people were asked to leave and didn’t then how can they arrest, and possibly detain, a large number of people? If a person refuses to move then he/she has to be persuaded, the simplest way is just to hit them.
I concede that riot control appeals to sadistic police, and that violence towards some of the protestors was misplaced, but there doesn’t seem to be much alternative. The only way to remove a large number of ardent protestors is a large number of police
My comment actually rivals the length of the original article, that’s ridiculous even by my standards!
With regards to the comment about the motivations for the g20 summit David, I think the coverage of the summit by one newspaper illustrated it succinctly: a double page spread. One page covered the ‘aims’ and results of the summit, ie everything everyone predicted: general passing over of the ticking time bomb of climate change despite claims to prevent future financial crises -what do they think the rising sea levels, increased natural disasters, rising global temperature will result in?- sarkozy didn’t walk out, merkell agreed with Brown and Obama on most of their points, we agreed to continue paying our way out of the recession etc etc. The other page was a series of cheesy photos with politicians seizing their kodaz moment with Obama. That sums it up; no change and photo ops.
The government will have held a significant role in how the police would have been briefed in the run-up to the summit, protesters were kept away from the main events without any regard for their health and safety.
I agree that the actions of some sadistic individuals are outside the government’s control, the police force is bound to attract some questionable characters as any job does. However, statistics have suggested that deploying a disproportionate amount of policemen to a protest is actually more likely to create violent situations as protesters are often cramped and feel threatened. The government would definitely have had a role in the briefing given to the police and therefore the volume of force sent to protests and the attitude the police would be instructed to take.
It’s such a shame the police take this attitude when the vast, vast majority of British protesters are peaceful and would never resort to violence.
The recent death of Ian Tomlinson takes this issue to a new level of inept and entirely unnecessary use of force. The man wasn’t even protesting, he was simply walking home.
As people get angrier and angrier about the state of the economy and the lack of political will to enforce real change, the attitude of the police will have to change to acknowledge that people need the democratic space to vent their frustration.
Kudos to Athene for taking time out of her Easter break to say something to a government with massively skewed priorities.
@ Athene
“That sums it up; no change and photo ops.”
Although I disagree, that’s completely not the point. Either write an article about the G20 summit itself, or about the G20 protests. To be honest, I think your article rather confuses the two.
“The government would definitely have had a role in the briefing given to the police and therefore the volume of force sent to protests and the attitude the police would be instructed to take.”
Proof? Yes the government will have briefed them, but ministers aren’t the police. It is highly unlikely (and I challenge you to give me some evidence) that the gov will have given detailed instructions re. strategy, or even numbers. Remember, kettling isn’t a gov policy, it was ruled legal by the courts. I disagree with that decision, but that’s neither here nor there.
“statistics have suggested that deploying a disproportionate amount of policemen to a protest is actually more likely to create violent situations”
May I see those statistics please?
@ Jenny
Which gov priorities do you think are skewed?
This is a completely unfair and unjustified attack on our police force. I think it offers one side of the story and I thus feel it necessary to post a response. I saw some revolting footage on TV of many protestors provoking, fronting-up and even spitting at policemen who were not charging or raising batons. This is the attitude the police were faced with throughout the day. They are human too.
“I wondered why it was necessary to have police in full riot gear for an entirely peaceful protest.”
The protests *weren
I guess it’s a question of proportionality isn’t it Dan? Does an admittedly small number of protesters spitting at police justify the widespread use of the incredibly questionable use of kettling.
“what makes our police-force so special and professional is that any incidents like this will be rigorously investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. In the same vein, police will examine how they dealt with these protests and make corrections and amendments according to the mistakes they made.”
Rubbish! The police immediately put out false info after this started to kick off, still haven’t interviewed the officer in question, and used a pathologist who’d been reprimanded in the past. What about the covering up of evidence/lies in the de Menezes case?
David, I’m not prepared to comment on an on-going police investigation into this incident and I think we should all refrain from doing so; they should be left to examine evidence and know an awful lot more than we do, which is gained purely from our viewing of media coverage. The point I am making is that there IS an enquiry going on and we should leave the police to get on with it. Just as a pointer, from what I understand, the officer involved in the Tomlinson incident has been suspended. The Menezes probe is an entirely separate incident and should be kept well and truly out of this discussion to stop us going off track.
The policy of kettling is an effective means of separating large crowds of people. I gather that it’s used in order for the police to establish and identify troublemakers going by the logic that they’re easier to identify in small groups than amongst tens of thousands of people. Of course, there are unfortunate consequences of this, one being that people are kept in a place they mightn’t want to be.
However, it’s important to note that when there are certain troublemakers intent on causing disorder, there will be individuals who have no intent of causing trouble that are affected. It’s rather like a football match when fans from opposing sides are kept apart or away fans are kept inside the ground for a period of time after the game so that not hoards of people are together at the same point in time that could result in violence. It’s a pretty standard police tactic.
As for proportionality, I think that overall, the police were very proportional. Violence was minimal, injuries on side the protestors and police were both low and a full investigation has been launched into the one fatality. By and large, people went to work and the job of the police is to protect the public. As I say, by and large, they did. I can appreciate also that they often feel as stuck in between a rock and a hard place.
“which is gained purely from our viewing of media coverage”
Without which, there’d be very little by way of enquiry in the first place, but no matter.
“The point I am making is that there IS an enquiry going on and we should leave the police to get on with it”
Fine, I was just resenting the implication that the existance of an enquiry is not justice served.
“Just as a pointer, from what I understand, the officer involved in the Tomlinson incident has been suspended.”
The very very very least the public can expect
“The Menezes probe is an entirely separate incident and should be kept well and truly out of this discussion”
I disagree: it demonstrates the police have learned nothing in regard to excessive violence
“The policy of kettling is an effective means of separating large crowds of people. ”
Yes, and inciting them to violence in the process
“Of course, there are unfortunate consequences of this, one being that people are kept in a place they mightn’t want to be.”
For hours and hours with no food, water, toilet facilities and, often, medical supplies. Very unfortunate indeed
“As for proportionality, I think that overall, the police were very proportional”
Then maybe you should read Athene’s article again
“By and large, people went to work and the job of the police is to protect the public.”
Please please explain to me how kettling and rushing almost entirely peaceful protests is protecting the public?
“I can appreciate also that they often feel as stuck in between a rock and a hard place.”
Considering the content of the article, I find this comment MASSIVELY ironic
Correction: is justice served
“This leads me onto my second point. The violence towards Mr. Tomlinson was unacceptable. No question. However, what makes our police-force so special and professional is that any incidents like this will be rigorously investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.”
As much as I hate to side with people like Athene who have that great courage to stick with the beaten route that the rest of the media follows – throwing insults at bankers, rallying around “the poor”, calling out the pigs, etc etc – I do not think this statement of yours is correct.
Old Holborn’s made a good collecton of examples:
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/04/innocent-victims-of-terrorism.html
“Without which, there
“And CCTV cameras, and the other police witnesses who have not yet spoken, and forensic examination and re-enactments. The list goes on… To think a ‘media’ coup will solve this is simplistic to say the least.
You miss the point. Those things will HELP the investigation, but as anyone can see from following the story, the death of Ian Tomlinson was a non-story before the media publicised those videos. Before, it was merely an IPCC “managed” investigation, very different from the independent one being carried out now. I wasn’t saying a media ‘coup’ was going to solve this, I saying that your criticism of the media is unfair considering the pivotal role the media has played in all this.
“David, an investigation takes TIME”
Dan, in the meantime, the mere possibility of a policeman who killed an innocent bystander is enough for him to be suspended
“For goodness sake, you again over simplify something; your ‘one line responses’ suggest this in themselves”
If we’re going to get personal, I would argue that you are over complicating this in order to blindly accept whatever the police have done as right and proper. Haven’t you recently got into a rather public spat over defending police actions at Hillsborough, which resulted in the death of 96 people?
“We should pride ourselves on the fact that we take measured investigations and don’t presume this officer guilty until proven so.”
As I said, this in itself is fine, but the existence of an investigation alone is not justice served, it’s not the job done, and it doesn’t prove that the police are without blame.
“Have people in Britain lost sense of their control so much that they feel the need to commit ‘violence’ because of people’s actions. Because they can’t go for a pee? I didn’t used to smash the door down of my form-room at school because I couldn’t get my sandwich. I just waited”
This comment shows both a deep ignorance and a deep insensitivity. This wasn’t people who were a bit peckish. Groups of totally peaceful protesters weren’t allowed basic freedoms for up to 6 hours. Have you ever thought about why it’s called kettling Dan? Put a volume into a confined space and apply heat? Kettling is designed to provoke violent responses.
“you are merely making excuses for them”
Maybe, and you are merely making excuses for police brutality
“I think the police were proportional”
Well, that says it all really doesn’t it Dan? If after reading about what happened to Athene and her friend, and you still think what the police did was fair enough, then you’re not ever going to question their actions are you? Showed, again, by your opinions on Hillsborough.
“I’d have shown an awful lot more force than the police did”
I don’t doubt that
“Stop being so optimistic about EVERY ONE of these protestors”
Stop being so optimistic/naive about the police
“The city employs millions of people who actually have jobs to go to (still) and individuals who want to get along with their daily lives.”
Funny there are no videos of protesters being violent towards bankers isn’t it Dan? Again, it’s a question of proportionality, but again, that’s an argument you seem to be blind to
“You yet again over simplify this by comparing operations against a terror threat and bad intelligence, to this police incident”
Take a look at the link Rory has provided, and you will see a pattern whereby police assume they have the power to act as they see fit, no matter the consequence.
“I do hope that if you are ever set on by a group of Countryside Alliance protestors that you appreciate the police protection that is granted to you”
In the case of an overtly violent protest yes. But, in your words Dan “there is no comparison at all”. The worst these protesters did is spit and shout, the worst the police did is beat the hell out of people. But as we’ve discovered Dan, you think that’s proportionate, which is why I’m going to leave it at that
Good, I suggest you do your homework before telling me what I said and what I didn’t. I’d rather not have you speaking for me, if at all possible
Let’s face it, the police didn’t ‘kill’ this man. What an utterly slanderous statement. They pushed him. This man happened to have a heart problem. It could have been exacerbated by all sorts of factors; factors you nor I know yet you seem to claim to by doing the police investigation for them in the space of 10 lines of childish spiel- something you never seem able to help. It’s like you’re conducting an argument in the playground with someone over football stickers, isn’t it.
“Dan, in the meantime, the mere possibility of a policeman who killed an innocent bystander is enough for him to be suspended.”
Ok; that make no sense whatsoever.
“The worst these protesters did is spit and shout, the worst the police did is beat the hell out of people.”
No, it’s not the worst they did. They hit policemen; they smashed windows at RBS- a serious case of civil disobedience; they set fire to effigies in the street and believe me, had the police not been so effective, they’d have done an awful lot more. Can I come and spit and shout in your face and use the excuse of a ‘protest’ to justify it? No. There is no justification for spitting and threatening the people who protect our safety on a daily basis.
Your opposition to this is based not on their actions. It’s based on the wider view you have that the premise of law and order isn’t the base idea for any functioning liberal-democracy. I’m afraid it is. You are one of these people that just like a ‘good old demonstration’ and then whimpers away as the victim afterwards. Half these people didn’t even know what they were protesting for! Did you see the interview with Russell Brand? It’s rather like all those burning the books of Salman Rushdie, which ironically, very few could actually read.
Post your arguments back with consideration and without the childish element that has epitomised your previous posts.
Without jumping into the David-Dan brawl, I think I’ll pick up on something by Malcolm:
“But I still think that any person who felt threatened had some chances to leave the crowd”
From what I’ve heard from other people and various interviews in the media, the main problem that sparked the violence was the fact that people WEREN’T allowed to leave the crowd – that people wanted to go and eat or drink, or go home, and they couldn’t because the police were in the way. And when people went to ask about it, the police pushed them back and constricted them further. The violence against the banks was not related to the violence in the area that suffered a fatality and had the majority of arrests. But that’s just what I’ve heard.
Regarding Dan’s comments – what make our police some of the finest in the world is that they are able to quench violence without sustaining casualties, they are able to stop the protests from getting worse (the following day there were less protests), they have the competence to be able to arrest that many people and that they will have an investigation.
The reason, though, that our police are not loved by the majority of British citizens is that they do not always act in an appropriate way, they do not get affected by the legal system on many occasions and investigations into them always seem to get incorrect assessments. A couple of examples would be that it took Boris’ personal intervention to get rid of Ian Blair, that the police who killed de Menezes were never brought to justice – despite so much evidence that there was no reason for the gunfire, he wasn’t challenged etc. Indeed on that case there were eleven shots fired about 3 seconds apart – surely after the first four shots you could see he was dead? Another 7 shots in the head really worth it? Or did they hit with the first four and then fire some wide? I mean the whole thing was stupid…. but my point is that there are some valid concerns about the inquests when no previous inquest has actually blamed invididuals.
We have one of the best police forces in the world but they need more responsibility, more investigations and more British politeness/civilness to the people they’re supposed to be “protecting”! :-\
Go on then, one more post, I can’t help myself.
“Good, I suggest you do your homework before telling me what I said and what I didn’t.”
Fair enough, I’ll just quote your Facebook page: “this is the time of the year that Liverpool FC fans wallow in the sorrow created by their own thuggish, hooliganesq behaviour”
“Let’s face it, the police didn’t ‘kill’ this man”
Fine, ‘contributed to his death through unprovoked and excessive violence’. Better?
“childish blah blah blah”
As I’ve said before Dan, it really does break my heart that you don’t like by arguing style, it really does
“They hit policemen; they smashed windows at RBS- a serious case of civil disobedience; they set fire to effigies in the street ”
Find me proof they hit policeman except in self-defense. Violence towards property is in no way comparable to violence towards people
“and believe me”
No
“There is no justification for spitting and threatening the people who protect our safety on a daily basis.”
But there is justification for beating up innocent, peaceful protesters? Right, gotcha
“Your opposition to this is based not on their actions.”
Yes it is
“It’s based on the wider view you have that the premise of law and order isn’t the base idea for any functioning liberal-democracy”
Law and order has to be balanced by basic freedoms. In the case of the G20 protests, basic rights to peaceful protest (as well as freedom of movement etc due to kettling) were not respected at all, as anyone reading Athene’s account and others like it can see
“Half these people didn’t even know what they were protesting for!”
It is not your right, Dan, to tell people what they can and can’t protest about.
At the end of the day, you are using the case of a tiny minority of aggressive protesters to justify widespread police brutality towards and disdain for the civil rights of the majority of peaceful protesters, because of a blind and unquestioning loyalty to those police
“the reason that our police are not loved by the majority of British citizens.”
Forgive me, Jason, but where exactly have you pulled this fact from? Can it be substantiated in any way in the form of a survey/reference or is it, as usuall, what you think/believe and therefore are stating it as fact? You fail to distinguish between areas, branches of police, etc.
I happen to be of the view that the police are supported by a majority of the British public in the work they do and were so with this protest. This particular officer involved in the incident doesn’t represent the entirel police force and luckily, there are people out there that make that distinction, even if you don’t.
“what you think/believe and therefore are stating it as fact”
Pot, meet kettle.
@ Chris Northwood
I think that deserves a well earned: LOL
Yet another academically insightful post from Chris Northwood. Why not start by addressing some of the points instead of partaking in cheap personal jibes, Chris? I’m yet to hear your views on pretty much everything; you seem to be a proverbial ‘fence inhabitant’.
David Levene: Pot, kettle, black, as well. I can just see you getting all smiley- like a kid at Christmas- at the fact someone’s had a dig at Mr. T. Couldn’t you think of a jibe yourself, or as usual, were you just jumping on the band-wagon of someone’s thoughts?
Can we come and spit at you, David, and not expect any response of a violent nature? Answer that.
> How do you know that the police contributed to his death? Have you seen the results of the second inquest? Have the results of the investigation been published? No. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I would argue that pre-empting police investigations aren
“Yet another academically insightful post from Chris Northwood.”
As a Computer Science student, I don’t think I’m qualified to make any “academic” insight into matters of politics.
As for being a proverbial “fence sitter”, I have very little faith or confidence in the ability of the police to do their job. This is due to seeing first-hand their incompetence in investigating the murder of a family member.
Anyway, I’m supposed to be on a skiing holiday, I’ll leave you, your many pseudonyms and David to continue this debate!
“I’ll leave you, your many pseudonyms and David ”
Oh dear Daniel… could it be that Mark Machado (who doesn’t exist on York Uni’s student directory), the ever loyal Taylor supporter who frequently posts high praise of you, is in fact YOU! How embarrassing, almost as bad getting caught lying about your CV in a very public manner…
“I happen to think that the police were extremely tolerant”
How surprising
“where it requires excessive police force”
Surely that’s a contradiction in terms? If it’s required, it’s not excessive. Poor show Dan…
“Also, I hope you will be as tolerant if ever someone comes up to you and starts spitting in your face”
I tell you what, if I beat that person up and then everyone else in my line of sight, then I’ll withdraw my criticism, kay? Also, isn’t that exactly what a certain Mark Machado said? Hmmm….
“I somehow think it would be followed by a squeaky outcry of ‘OMG’ followed by a flailing of arms, as well as a Facebook note about what this grotesque individual had just done to you”
Now you just sound a bit silly Dan
No, David, you do.
Mark Machado is on my FB friends network, so you are more than welcome to look him up. He left York in my first year and is now doing an MA in International Relations at the LSE. So, David, you actually look rather stupid for spouting off such ridiculous claims. It actually makes you look ever so slightly paranoid.
David, I hope you can recognise the sheer immaturity of your arguments. We’ve all heard you speak as well, when you tend to waffle instead of say anything vaguely meaningful on the subject of debate.
The problem with you and your arguments are this. You completely exaggerate everything and it discredits what you have to say. For example:
> “if I beat that person up and then everyone else in my line of sight, then I
On Mark Machado – I simply don’t believe you, and I don’t see any other interpretation of what Chris says, and I tend to trust him over you
“immature blah blah”
Once again Dan, you seem to be under the mistaken impression I care what you think
“Clearly, the police *didn’t* beat everyone up within their line of sight, did they David”
I didn’t say they did. But you presented to me a situation that (apparantly) mirrored what happened at the protests, and I gave you the response that I believe mirrors what the police did. It’s called an analogy, look it up
“If they weren’t, no one would have been there protesting at all, right? ”
Oh dear Dan, you seem to be a bit confused. The police not respecting the right to peaceful protest equates to police brutality towards those protesting (which clearly happened), not calling off the protests altogether
“it’s because the police had enough”
That’s not just not good enough I’m afraid, that’s not how the law works
“police are entitled to use force when needed”
Agreed, but in many cases – such as the one Athene describes – it wasn’t needed. This is what you seem incapable of understanding
“I re-iterate, someone spitting at me and probably any other self-respecting individual would have got what-for back”
Again: the police attacked people that were not being violent. That clearly isn’t an issue for you, so let’s be grateful you’re not running the country eh Dan?
“the police did not go about kicking seven shades of s**t out of every protestor”
No, but once again, the available evidence shows that the police response WAS disproportionate. It is unfortunate for apologists for police brutality such as yourself that such a moment was captured by video for all to see
“I know you’re an emotional guy and love a bit of ‘dramaaa’”
Listen, and I’m saying this with your best interests at heart, really I am, but writing stuff like that makes you seem a lot more ridiculous than it does me
And with that I’m going to leave this, because I think we’re going round in circles
You actually both agree with something that fatally undermines the debate:
‘I hope that the officer that attacked Tomlinson is brought to justice’ – David
‘The violence towards Mr. Tomlinson was unacceptable. No question.’ – Dan Taylor
What exactly is it that officer x is being punished for in the case of Ian Tomlinson. As Dan has already noted the police cannot be said to have ‘killed’ Ian, rather they unjustifiably attacked him. One assumes that the charge of officer x will be based upon this attack and its unjustifiabilty.
Why is this attack unjustified?
Why is it ‘unacceptable. No question’?
Maybe it is because he was not even protesting, yet attacked.
But, many who were there supposedly as protesters were in actuality spectators. Yet, they being hit or kettling them is justifiable according to Dan. So, what is it that makes this action wrong for you Dan? I am genuinely confused and am not trying to be bitchy – this is why I hate internet debates.
I see the act as wrong in virtue of the fact that he did nothing wrong and was hit, and, this was a causal factor that led to a fatal heart attack, minutes later. Yet, is the wrongness of this action contingent upon his death?
No.
If this action is wrong and the officer is ‘brought to justice’, he is brought to justice for the action. The act being an unprovoked attack. If what I say is correct, in virtue of this the police actions in their dispersal of protesters was wrong.
Unprovoked attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t244-zEENSs
This is corroborated by many other videos if you follow the links on the side (youtube video you can get many accounts like Athene’s.
If we are to be consistent in our moral logic, we need to view police actions on the day widely to account. If not, then, as I predict will happen a back tracking will be necessary.
correction: If we are to be consistent in our moral logic, we need to hold police actions on the day widely to account.
I sincerely hope there is an enquiry into the death of Mr. Tomlinson and the conduct of officers involved in alleged (and videotaped) brutality.
No doubt the IPCC will look into the case, yet whether or not a just conclusion can be reached is doubtable. (The Menezes enquiry is still very fresh in the minds of many when stories like this emerge)
Unfortunately there’s no equivalent of the IPCC for anarchist thugs intent on baiting the police into a violent response. The behaviour of some political ‘activists’ is no different to that of football hooligans. At certain matches at certain grounds. hooligans have provoked the police into charging crowds and fencing off areas to control violence, and there’s very little condemnation of the police for dealing with brutes / thugs / lowlifes / hooligans / chavs / crims etc….
Just because politics is the issue, not sport, suddenly means there’s an outcry over police behaviour which is very similar to that shown at clashes involving hooligans.
Setting up tents in the middle of a thoroughfare is bound to cause trouble. Police can rightly move your ‘camp’ on. Yet people did not comply. Combined with the various other protests, cumulatively resulting in violence and criminal damage to several premises (notably RBS), a proportion of the ‘campaigners’ set out to wind up and taunt police, to provoke them into a violent response. Anarchists are hardly going to respect the keepers of order. If these people were wearing football colours and chanting the name of a football firm, as opposed to populist slogans, the response from the media would no doubt be different.
If protesters had complied with police orders and moved the tents out of the road, or backed off, or had even coordinated marches to avoid overstretching the police force, the operation would have been much smoother for the metropolitan police. It’s a shame that a protest without a clear aim seemed to target the police as much as it did the G20 leaders themselves.
I’ve always been an opponent of the ‘permission to protest’ rules that came in as part of organised crime legislation under the guise of ‘anti terror measures’ but after watching chaos unfold, they might have been part of a peaceful solution to this sad situation. Cooperation with the police would have allowed the same points to be made to the government and G20, would have generated the same media coverage, and given protesters that same ‘I made a difference’ feeling.
I’ve done a little reading/viewing of pictures on The Guardian’s website, and from this it is clear that the protests during the day did include unprovoked aggression and violence from many members of some crowds against the police. Police were injured, as were protestors. There were some large demonstrations by many people which were entirely peacaeful.
I accept that the press will invariably try to exaggerate any dramatic events or altercations, however equally Athene’s account completely omits the previous incidents of the day which could easily explain why she observed:
“Those who tried to reason with the police, explaining to them that they did not intend to use violence, were met with sneers.”
From my limited experience of protests, some members of an initially peaceful crowd can become violent, and many agressive and rebellious when faced with people they deem to have an opposing opinion. See the SJCTV link I’ve hopefully successfully appended to this comment. Virtually all of the credit for this goes to Thomas Cartwright who filmed, and I believe also editted the entire report.
To Jason’s comment that people were prevented from leaving by the police:
I accept that fences and police were used to restrict people’s movement, but I don’t think they actually quarantined a large section of London during the daytime protests. It should have been clear to anybody entering the area that day that they couldn’t rely on going about their business as usual. They had the choice whether to enter the area.
I repeat that Athene’s account mentions that the police *specifically requested* people to leave the area, before proceeding to do it forcibly. I also repeat that I think anybody had opportunity – even after the police began moving the crowd away from the camp – to leave, Athene merely says
“Finally we left, we might have got badly hurt if we’d stayed, or arrested”
She does not mention the two of them had any difficulty in doing so.
If you don’t obey a reasonable police request then you can expect a more forceful attempt from them. In most cases this will be by arrest. In the example above, many people were prevented from being in an area where they could potentially have caused destruction and injury.
I know somebody will disagree and say that ‘the protests were intended to be peaceful’. From previous events that day, this isn’t the case, and the crowd being in the vicinity of where the summit would take place could have provoked a more agressive demonstration.
After a little more reading and research it seems that (while people outside the camp were prevented from entering the camp and were asked to leave) people already IN the camp WERE kept inside the camp from 7pm until approx midnight when they were removed in a similar manner.
It is this that I think may be worthy of more criticism and scrutiny than the situation faced by people in Athene’s position.
I’m sure the banker’s would have encouraged the police to ‘consolidate the two groups into one easily manageable group’. The police’s reason for keeping the groups separate was probably that, with limited manpower, they could not simultaneously move both groups of people away from the area in a controlled way.
Considering the crowd’s reaction to being prevented from entering the camp, imagine their response if they’d stood there and witnessed the camp being disbanded by the police. Some members of the crowd could have been attempting to join the camp with less peaceful intentions and so it was sensible to remove them from the area before getting the campers to move.
I think when the overall situation is considered the tactics employed by the police are justifiable. I accept that there were probably instances of excessive force/brutality by *some* members of the police and that in the circumstances it is difficult to gather evidence that would prevent these police being on duty at similar events.
Even so the overall behaviour by the police is very different from my interpretation of how riots and crowds were dealt with decades ago so there have been changes for the better.
“Looking up at the buildings around us, we were reminded that this is what the police will protect at any cost, this is what our government will sacrifice our civil liberties for: bankers who feed off the world’s resources and the world’s poorest people; those are the ones who can sleep safely.” – this statement reminds me why there are laws. everybody, no matter how detestable, deserves protection. this vigelante attitude is exactly what the police are there for. so i am not exactly happy with the greed of the bankers, but it is morrally abhorrant to want to do physical harm to them, and lets face it, telling by the tone of some protesters, i wonder what would have happenned if the protesters had got there hands on a real banker.
“It cannot always be the rich and powerful who reap the benefits of the police force, everyone pays taxes and everyone has a right to the civil liberties we have fought for” – true, but again the bankers have just as much of a right to protection as you. there were people there who were just there to make trouble, who were looking for a fight, and there always are.
police brutality? if you think that the british police are bad, just open your eyes to the big wide world. look how italian police dealt with football fans, or french police with strikers. unlike these cases, the british police don’t use tear gas and rubber bullets and are decidedly restrained. compared to other countries the british police are decidedly restrained. ok, so there were definatly some behavior from the police which was unacceptable. but seriously, be thankful that the protests were in britain, because it could be much worse.