26 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted – punched, kicked, spat at
Do you have a source for that? And, if you do were those assaults before or after police stormed the bandstand trampling the flowers and candles left there?
It doesn't matter - The Police Are ALWAYS Right...well, according to some people, anyway.
Because @Telford isn't going to give you the source, I will: that bastion of impartiality, the Metropolitan Police Federation. Do I think they're lying? Yes, because they have a record of lying longer than the worst villain in the city.
This is not to say that there wasn't any violence directed towards police officers. The PA recorded three incidents of officers being pushed, and one of a police van's wing mirror being vandalised. All the perpetrators were men.
So who did they arrest? Four people, at least three of them women. I don't know about the 4th. The women weren't violent towards the police.
Meanwhile, in other news, a woman leaving the vigil was flashed at. She reported it immediately to the police who were present. The female police officer who wanted to investigate was over-ruled by her male colleague who said they were 'too busy with the rioters'. No attempt was made to help the woman, no contact details were taken, no search made, nothing. She was left to make her own way home.
Bashing the (female) public, it would seem, no matter what.
I daresay some plonker will come along to aver that the woman who was flashed at *obviously* wanted it, judging by the way she was walking/standing/breathing etc. etc.
26 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted – punched, kicked, spat at
Do you have a source for that? And, if you do were those assaults before or after police stormed the bandstand trampling the flowers and candles left there?
Confirmed by Mr Doc. I hope you didn't think I had just made it up.
The Met. The force who killed an innocent man at Stockwell tube and immediately released a pack of lies to justify themselves? If a Met officer told me grass was green I'd stick my head out of the window to make sure.
26 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted – punched, kicked, spat at
Do you have a source for that? And, if you do were those assaults before or after police stormed the bandstand trampling the flowers and candles left there?
Confirmed by Mr Doc. I hope you didn't think I had just made it up.
No, we thought the police made it up and you parroted it as fact without questioning it.
It's hard to make out what was going on in some of the footage but there did seem to be some anti-lockdown protestors who were gate-crashing the vigil and behaving badly. They weren't arrested though.
It also looked as if some officers were going up to people and shoving them for no apparent reason.
I didn't hear the interview but my brother told me he'd heard an officer on Radio 4 who said that it wasn't as it looked and that people should understand that the police sometimes restrain and arrest people for their own safety and to prevent them from getting hurt. I'm sure that operationally, that can be the case in certain circumstances, but to my inexpert eye shoving someone doesn't look like something you would do to them for the benefit of their health.
There is a balance somewhere. I knew people who were at the Bradford City FC fire disaster in 1985 who saw coppers go onto the blazing stand again and again to drag people to safety. I know a very lefty and right-on family who've been on loads of demos and tussled with police who have nothing but praise for the way the police handled their daughter's disappearance. Mercifully, she was found safe and well and the support they received was first class.
The Stockwell incident KarlLB alludes to was shameful and deeply shocking. As were the things the SPG got up to during the Thatcher era. Even away from all that, I know of instances of petty criminals and even a lad with no previous convictions who had fallen when fleeing from police who had assaulted his friends and taken the officer over with him. The officer had grabbed him as he ran down a steep hill and they both fell awkwardly, the officer breaking his finger.
He was taken to the cells, stripped and lashed to a radiator whilst officers took turns to kick his bare arse until it was swollen like a purple balloon.
Even though the lad's father was the head-honcho of a prominent institution in the town no action was taken.
That's a horror story from my own limited experience but I've also seen a black female officer handle racist abuse with great dignity, officers calmly putting up with verbal and physical abuse that would have made me crack and act with great tact and sensitivity after accidents and tragedies.
The Met. The force who killed an innocent man at Stockwell tube and immediately released a pack of lies to justify themselves? If a Met officer told me grass was green I'd stick my head out of the window to make sure.
This was the situation. A few days before, 3 bombs had been exploded on trains and one on a bus. 56 people died.
You receive information that a suicide bomber has entered a train. If left alone he could kill a lot of people. If challenged he could detonate the explosion and kill a lot of people including the officers asked to challenge him.
You are in control of the situation. What would you do ?
That dragging sound you hear is the scrape of you moving the goalposts.
You asked what Karl would do, what we would all do.
The answer is absolutely abundantly clear. If you want to stop a suspected suicide bomber from blowing up a train, you don't wait for him to board the actual train. Honestly, the state of this. Really. For shame, Telford. For shame.
A normally dressed, unarmed man, not carrying anything to arouse suspicion catches a bus to a tube station and gets on a train. This ‘suspicious’ behaviour leads to him being shot multiple times.
Those following him misidentified him and constructed a wholly mistaken and false narrative about his behaviour.
Those in charge of the operation failed to properly manage the operation from briefing right through to shooting to reduce or avoid the risk of killing a wholly innocent man going about his normal business.
Afterwards there was a consistent attempt to cover up what had happened and to obstruct or prevent an official enquiry.
That dragging sound you hear is the scrape of you moving the goalposts.
You asked what Karl would do, what we would all do.
The answer is absolutely abundantly clear. If you want to stop a suspected suicide bomber from blowing up a train, you don't wait for him to board the actual train. Honestly, the state of this. Really. For shame, Telford. For shame.
Are you blaming me for this man's death ? Is it something I should be ashamed of ?
A normally dressed, unarmed man, not carrying anything to arouse suspicion catches a bus to a tube station and gets on a train. This ‘suspicious’ behaviour leads to him being shot multiple times.
Those following him misidentified him and constructed a wholly mistaken and false narrative about his behaviour.
Those in charge of the operation failed to properly manage the operation from briefing right through to shooting to reduce or avoid the risk of killing a wholly innocent man going about his normal business.
Afterwards there was a consistent attempt to cover up what had happened and to obstruct or prevent an official enquiry.
There was an official enquiry and a full investigation. None of those involved were prosecuted.
That dragging sound you hear is the scrape of you moving the goalposts.
You asked what Karl would do, what we would all do.
The answer is absolutely abundantly clear. If you want to stop a suspected suicide bomber from blowing up a train, you don't wait for him to board the actual train. Honestly, the state of this. Really. For shame, Telford. For shame.
Are you blaming me for this man's death ? Is it something I should be ashamed of ?
A normally dressed, unarmed man, not carrying anything to arouse suspicion catches a bus to a tube station and gets on a train. This ‘suspicious’ behaviour leads to him being shot multiple times.
Those following him misidentified him and constructed a wholly mistaken and false narrative about his behaviour.
Those in charge of the operation failed to properly manage the operation from briefing right through to shooting to reduce or avoid the risk of killing a wholly innocent man going about his normal business.
Afterwards there was a consistent attempt to cover up what had happened and to obstruct or prevent an official enquiry.
There was an official enquiry and a full investigation. None of those involved were prosecuted.
You're being blamed for being an apologist for murder. Of course no-one was prosecuted (beyond trivial health and safety violations). The police are almost never prosecuted and certainly never convicted when they murder people while on duty. And people like you are to blame for that, because it's you who make excuses for them, who make it politically viable to let them get away with it, and who form part of juries and so make convictions unobtainable in spite of the evidence.
Yes. That doesn’t mean they would not have been found guilty. It means that the Crown Prosecution Service considered that there was insufficient evidence available for a better than 50% chance of obtaining a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
This was in the context of obstruction by the Metropolitan Police of the investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The force that should have investigated possible crime was the force which was under suspicion, and which obstructed the independent investigators.
The Metropolitan Police paid the family of Jean Charles de Menezes a reputed six figure sum, and their legal costs. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his official capacity contested criminal charges of "failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes", and was found guilty at trial and fined £175,000 with prosecution costs of £385,000.
@telford please read for comprehension. My point was not the event itself but the pack of lies told immediately afterwards to defend the actions. Lies like the victim was wearing a heavy coat which could conceal explosives. Lies like his jumping over a ticker barrier. Are you also going to come running to the defence of lying liars who lie and their lies?
I don't think it's an 'excuse' tò say that tensions were high after the tube bombings and that tragic errors were made. The police aren't generally in the habit of walking onto tube trains and shooting people for the hell of it.
There are certainly issues with the way instances of police violence are dealt with - deaths in custody, assaults. The incident I mentioned of what I would consider a serious assault in a police cell wasn't even investigated.
It was painful and humiliating for the lad involved but pretty low key compared to some incidents, but an assault is an assault.
I've not seen or heard much detail on this but I did hear one report that the officer arrested for the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard - and we don't yet know the appalling details of what he did to her before she died - had received medical treatment for an injury received after his arrest. The implication was that he may have been assaulted by officers while in custody. We don't know yet. He may have been injured during his arrest. I've not seen any further detail on this.
It has been said that on both occasions when he sustained head injuries he was alone in his cell and monitored by CCTV. The incidents are being investigated.
I've seen the Police do stuff at first hand that would get anyone else imprisoned or fined. They simply don't care as they know a) few people complain b) when they do complain it gets nowhere, ranks close and notebooks record almost word for word the same cock and bull story c) if it gets to court then the complainants' character and family are traduced d) the Police play the defender of the weak card.
Interesting isn't it, that with the advent of street pastors, arrests drop by over 50%. It's not all down to the influence and actions of the SP's: there's very strong evidence that the presence of SP's meant the Police couldn't wind people up anymore.
Goodness only knows, I have them try it on me when I rode a motorbike. One attitude to you when the helmets on and they assume you are a dumb working class kid - quite another when the helmet comes off and you are revealed as a white middle class minister.
I've even had to contend with Police asking me not to report a "found dead" person for 30 minutes so it wouldn't affect their shift. They didn't realise that there was an independent witness to that conversation through the kitchen hatch .... what did a complaint bring? "Misunderstanding of what was said" and a regular Police stop on both cars for no reason.
I don't often use the F-word, but ISTM that the police have Fucked Up Big-time, and have made a rod for their own backs, whoever it was who gave the order to wade in against those keeping vigil.
Any future *civil unrest* or protest - such as that in London last night, about the infamous new bill curtailing such protest - will inevitably lead to yet more such incidents.
It won't be long now before the police are using tear gas, mounted officers, water cannon etc. against unarmed civilians, including women, whilst those responsible for the *laws* (mostly men) cower under their desks, and hide behind their empty and incomprehensible words, to quote a Guardian cartoon.
Police are simply not equipped to deal with people who gather peacefully and respectfully.
Plus Covid has confused them. “These people should not be gathering.” has morphed into “these people should be dispersed.” which has morphed into “physically move them on”.
The first is correct - nobody should be gathering. The answer is to photograph them and send fines or even give on-the-spot fines. Those with the microphones would get £10,000 fines and the rest £200.
It would be upsetting because their cause is just and right, but it would show respect of them and of the law.
I was shooting for a form of facetious sarcasm, but irony fits the bill too.
For the last year we've seen constant attacks on those who gather in large groups, be it for any reason from celebrating a sports victory to listening to a political orator pontificate, because Covid means we shouldn't be meeting in large groups. Now it seems that the grounds for those attacks were actually disagreement with the reason for gathering rather than the fact of the gathering in and of itself. Hence my facetiously sarcastic response about Covid leaving people alone if they're gathering for a good reason.
Either we're in a pandemic that requires significant restrictions on public freedoms or we're not. If it's OK for one group to meet then it should be OK for other groups to meet as well. The rules apply to everyone. You can't pick and choose depending on whether the group's reason for meeting is one that you personally find politically acceptable or not.
Opinion piece in today's "i". I don't quite agree as I think Cressida Dick showed amazing complacency when she was first interviewed, but it is perhaps a more thoughtful response than some: https://tinyurl.com/wmp9f6vv
I suggest you read @Boogie's post above. The complaint against the police here is the manner of their response. Unless you're of that faction that believes the police should be allowed to take any action they want to if someone is acting illegally.
Let's just get rid of the police. Life will be so much better then.
This isn't the argument. It's that it wouldn't be worse for most of us - and actually better for some. Most people already live their lives without ever interacting with the police. They don't see the police, they don't speak to the police, they don't need the police.
Even then, all the average citizen asks is that the police turn out when they're called, and increasingly, they're not even doing that. If something was kicking off in the street, I'd text my neighbours first, and then perhaps the police if it was something beyond our lawful ability to deal with.
The problem is that the police have accreted functions to themselves that no one else is allowed to carry out. We currently have no options but to deal with them, and those interactions are contingent. If you're white, rich, educated, male, you usually start with being treated with a modicum of respect. If you're not - you're brown, female, gay, poor, accented, whatever - then any encounter with the police can end up with you becoming the suspect, rather than the victim.
I was once stopped in a police traffic check where they were stopping all cars, checking driving licences etc. and in some cases getting people to open their boots (aka trunk). There was quite a queue.
A police officer came along to where I was waiting, and asked if it was my car, no it was my parents’, what was the registration number, had I got any form of ID. I produced my driving licence, and my Law Society Student card which had my photo pasted into it. Within minutes she was back again, getting the car in front of me to move forward and the one behind me to back up, and moving the cones so that I could get out of the queue and on my way.
I have wondered since then whether they were concerned that there would be something happening which they didn’t want to have even a trainee lawyer witnessing.
An off the cuff theory as to why the police moved in on Clapham common:
Money
Starting salary for a constable: around £25K + London allowance
Rises to around £40 after 7 years
Sergeant: 40-45K
Inspector: 51-56K
And so on..
And Dame Cressida is on around £230K + benefits
So if your promotion and rising up the pay scale is determined by obeying orders and towing the line, and you've got bills to pay....
Are you suggesting that our gallant police officers are in the job merely for the money? Surely there are other reasons - a nice uniform, a nice hard baton to hit citizens with etc. etc.
Context is everything and it's certainly high time there was a long hard look at all of this - otherwise it becomes an issue of personal anecdote.
'I know a copper who plunged into a blazing building to save lives ...' therefore they must all be Saints.
'I know a copper who punched somebody ...' therefore they must all be bastards.
I do know a retired copper who told me how he 'lost it' out of frustration with conflicting orders from the top and with pressure from rival football fans which led him to grab an innocent teenager who happened to be passing by. When the boy's father remonstrated with him he came to his senses and let the lad go, mortified at how close he had come to venting his frustration on someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He said it haunts him more than anything else that happened during his police career.
I knew a lad who joined a picket line during the Miners' Strike and who gave a very balanced account of what he experienced. For most of the time there was good-natured banter between the police and pickets. Then a bunch of Socialist Workers' Party types turned up and things became ugly. It was clear that many of the miners didn't want them there. Some of these fellas had pads under their donkey jackets with nails sticking out so that if a scrum developed with the police they would cause some damage.
Equally, it was clear that some coppers and some miners were spoiling for a fight.
When the push started he was suited to the front - he is a little bloke smaller than me even - where he was hoisted off the ground by the throat by a copper. The officer noticed that he had been standing next to a vicar and so gently let him down to the ground.
For a while all hell broke loose until both sides fell back to lick their wounds. My friend and his pals, all students or recent graduates, set off for the bus but were set upon by miners annoyed at having a bunch of middle-class studenty types gate-crashing their protest.
A pretty messy day all round.
I don't think we should underestimate the complexity of any of this. The police were accused of too light an approach during the London riots of 2011. I was in London at the time and had an interesting and very balanced conversation about it with two Met officers on the street who had been in the thick of it.
Anyhow - those are all anecdotal observations again.
Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that "all cops are bastards", and very few are arguing that they're all saints either.
The argument is trying to work out what it is they're actually there for. Because if you have a sizeable minority (possibly even a majority) of the population who think the police are there to make their lives difficult, harass them and oppress them, then the purpose of policing has absolutely lost its way.
If the counter-argument is "well, it's a difficult job", I don't think anyone's going to disagree with you, but we have to ask the question "why is it a difficult job?" Actual crime (according the the National Crime Survey) is going down - it's just a third of the level in the mid 90s. The 'Defund the Police' (stupid name) movement made some entirely valid points that for most incidents to which the police were called, another service could have been contacted, more cheaply and more effectively. @ExclamationMark makes the exact same point about Street Pastors.
Yes, for certain it's a difficult job, but for much of the time, they're doing it really badly.
So you have a situation where it appears that the penalty for acting out is less then the penalty for doing the right thing and reporting on a colleague for acting out - which have a range of consequences right up to the deadly.
I don't see how that can be fixed without fairly significant reform of the police -- which will involve a serious discussion about exactly what they are for (as per @Doc Tor above).
The Met. The force who killed an innocent man at Stockwell tube and immediately released a pack of lies to justify themselves? If a Met officer told me grass was green I'd stick my head out of the window to make sure.
The Met. The force who killed an innocent man at Stockwell tube and immediately released a pack of lies to justify themselves? If a Met officer told me grass was green I'd stick my head out of the window to make sure.
That was war. He jumped the barrier didn't he?
That was one of the lies they told to cover themselves.
The argument is trying to work out what it is they're actually there for.
To keep the peace, ensure that the law is obeyed, and catch criminals so that they can be brought to justice.
They're failing on all three counts, though.
They don't keep the peace. That's down to most people living peaceable lives. Almost any intervention required can be done by good stewarding of events, or community workers paid for by the council in conjunction with the health services. And there's a good argument from minorities that police presence is entirely the opposite of peaceful.
They don't ensure that the law is obeyed. I walked to the shop earlier today. Pretty much every car that passed me in the 20mph limit was speeding - there's an electronic sign which says how fast they were going - and no one was warned, arrested or given a notice. Sure, they might arrest you if they see you breaking the law, but that's might, and chances increase if you're black or brown.
They don't catch criminals, either. Roughly 9 out of 10 crimes reported to the police (and that's way less than the number crimes committed) go uncharged. That's without even looking at the conviction rates.
It might be what we want them to be there for, but it's not what they're currently doing. So what are they doing?
It is challenging to measure the deterrent effect of policing, because it's always hard to measure things that didn't happen. You can change what the police do in a particular area, and perhaps attribute changes in crime rates to the change in police behaviour.
They don't catch criminals, either. Roughly 9 out of 10 crimes reported to the police (and that's way less than the number crimes committed) go uncharged. That's without even looking at the conviction rates.
I don't think this says quite what you say it does. If, let's say, a habitual shoplifter gets nicked for theft, they may only be charged with the offence for which the police have evidence. If there's no evidence that they committed a load of other thefts ('cause the goods have long since been moved on), nobody's going to get charged for those crimes. But nevertheless, the criminal is in prison.
So I think you give a more accurate picture if you ask what fraction of criminals get caught, rather than what fraction of crimes get punished.
Many years ago we were burgled. A fingerprint team came and dusted for fingerprints. Lots of questions were asked to help them try and find the offenders.
My friend was burgled last week. They gave her a crime number. That was it, no visit, no questions, nothing.
The last time I had conversations with police offices about this very topic , I was told that these days policing is far more intelligence-led.
Whatever that means.
And to be fair to the police i was chatting with, they were not in favour. In no small part because They felt that We (the Great British Public) don’t understand it and feel short changed.
Comments
It doesn't matter - The Police Are ALWAYS Right...well, according to some people, anyway.
This is not to say that there wasn't any violence directed towards police officers. The PA recorded three incidents of officers being pushed, and one of a police van's wing mirror being vandalised. All the perpetrators were men.
So who did they arrest? Four people, at least three of them women. I don't know about the 4th. The women weren't violent towards the police.
So again, just what are the police for?
I daresay some plonker will come along to aver that the woman who was flashed at *obviously* wanted it, judging by the way she was walking/standing/breathing etc. etc.
Mr Doc - if you are referring to Doc Tor - mentions only 3 officers *pushed* (hardly an unlikely event in what became a bit of a scrum).
It's rather difficult to defend the indefensible, isn't it?
No, we thought the police made it up and you parroted it as fact without questioning it.
It also looked as if some officers were going up to people and shoving them for no apparent reason.
I didn't hear the interview but my brother told me he'd heard an officer on Radio 4 who said that it wasn't as it looked and that people should understand that the police sometimes restrain and arrest people for their own safety and to prevent them from getting hurt. I'm sure that operationally, that can be the case in certain circumstances, but to my inexpert eye shoving someone doesn't look like something you would do to them for the benefit of their health.
There is a balance somewhere. I knew people who were at the Bradford City FC fire disaster in 1985 who saw coppers go onto the blazing stand again and again to drag people to safety. I know a very lefty and right-on family who've been on loads of demos and tussled with police who have nothing but praise for the way the police handled their daughter's disappearance. Mercifully, she was found safe and well and the support they received was first class.
The Stockwell incident KarlLB alludes to was shameful and deeply shocking. As were the things the SPG got up to during the Thatcher era. Even away from all that, I know of instances of petty criminals and even a lad with no previous convictions who had fallen when fleeing from police who had assaulted his friends and taken the officer over with him. The officer had grabbed him as he ran down a steep hill and they both fell awkwardly, the officer breaking his finger.
He was taken to the cells, stripped and lashed to a radiator whilst officers took turns to kick his bare arse until it was swollen like a purple balloon.
Even though the lad's father was the head-honcho of a prominent institution in the town no action was taken.
That's a horror story from my own limited experience but I've also seen a black female officer handle racist abuse with great dignity, officers calmly putting up with verbal and physical abuse that would have made me crack and act with great tact and sensitivity after accidents and tragedies.
Just saying.
This was the situation. A few days before, 3 bombs had been exploded on trains and one on a bus. 56 people died.
You receive information that a suicide bomber has entered a train. If left alone he could kill a lot of people. If challenged he could detonate the explosion and kill a lot of people including the officers asked to challenge him.
You are in control of the situation. What would you do ?
If that was the situation, then it would indeed be grave.
They followed him from his home. They let him board the train.
You tell me if you think that scenario - the real one, as opposed to the one you've just parroted - makes any sense.
Perhaps they regarded his entry on to a train as a clincher
You asked what Karl would do, what we would all do.
The answer is absolutely abundantly clear. If you want to stop a suspected suicide bomber from blowing up a train, you don't wait for him to board the actual train. Honestly, the state of this. Really. For shame, Telford. For shame.
Those following him misidentified him and constructed a wholly mistaken and false narrative about his behaviour.
Those in charge of the operation failed to properly manage the operation from briefing right through to shooting to reduce or avoid the risk of killing a wholly innocent man going about his normal business.
Afterwards there was a consistent attempt to cover up what had happened and to obstruct or prevent an official enquiry.
Are you blaming me for this man's death ? Is it something I should be ashamed of ?
There was an official enquiry and a full investigation. None of those involved were prosecuted.
You're being blamed for being an apologist for murder. Of course no-one was prosecuted (beyond trivial health and safety violations). The police are almost never prosecuted and certainly never convicted when they murder people while on duty. And people like you are to blame for that, because it's you who make excuses for them, who make it politically viable to let them get away with it, and who form part of juries and so make convictions unobtainable in spite of the evidence.
This was in the context of obstruction by the Metropolitan Police of the investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The force that should have investigated possible crime was the force which was under suspicion, and which obstructed the independent investigators.
The Metropolitan Police paid the family of Jean Charles de Menezes a reputed six figure sum, and their legal costs. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his official capacity contested criminal charges of "failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes", and was found guilty at trial and fined £175,000 with prosecution costs of £385,000.
When the Met screw up they lie.
There are certainly issues with the way instances of police violence are dealt with - deaths in custody, assaults. The incident I mentioned of what I would consider a serious assault in a police cell wasn't even investigated.
It was painful and humiliating for the lad involved but pretty low key compared to some incidents, but an assault is an assault.
I've not seen or heard much detail on this but I did hear one report that the officer arrested for the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard - and we don't yet know the appalling details of what he did to her before she died - had received medical treatment for an injury received after his arrest. The implication was that he may have been assaulted by officers while in custody. We don't know yet. He may have been injured during his arrest. I've not seen any further detail on this.
Honestly, for all their downsides, a mobile phone video camera is an excellent piece of kit, especially when it's live streaming.
Interesting isn't it, that with the advent of street pastors, arrests drop by over 50%. It's not all down to the influence and actions of the SP's: there's very strong evidence that the presence of SP's meant the Police couldn't wind people up anymore.
Goodness only knows, I have them try it on me when I rode a motorbike. One attitude to you when the helmets on and they assume you are a dumb working class kid - quite another when the helmet comes off and you are revealed as a white middle class minister.
I've even had to contend with Police asking me not to report a "found dead" person for 30 minutes so it wouldn't affect their shift. They didn't realise that there was an independent witness to that conversation through the kitchen hatch .... what did a complaint bring? "Misunderstanding of what was said" and a regular Police stop on both cars for no reason.
No, I don't trust the Police one bit.
Besides, everyone knows Covid leaves people alone if they're gathering for a good reason.
Any future *civil unrest* or protest - such as that in London last night, about the infamous new bill curtailing such protest - will inevitably lead to yet more such incidents.
It won't be long now before the police are using tear gas, mounted officers, water cannon etc. against unarmed civilians, including women, whilst those responsible for the *laws* (mostly men) cower under their desks, and hide behind their empty and incomprehensible words, to quote a Guardian cartoon.
This wouldn't be some kind of hyperbole and misrepresentation, would it?
It might be, but I read it as irony.
Plus Covid has confused them. “These people should not be gathering.” has morphed into “these people should be dispersed.” which has morphed into “physically move them on”.
The first is correct - nobody should be gathering. The answer is to photograph them and send fines or even give on-the-spot fines. Those with the microphones would get £10,000 fines and the rest £200.
It would be upsetting because their cause is just and right, but it would show respect of them and of the law.
Silly comment.
I was shooting for a form of facetious sarcasm, but irony fits the bill too.
For the last year we've seen constant attacks on those who gather in large groups, be it for any reason from celebrating a sports victory to listening to a political orator pontificate, because Covid means we shouldn't be meeting in large groups. Now it seems that the grounds for those attacks were actually disagreement with the reason for gathering rather than the fact of the gathering in and of itself. Hence my facetiously sarcastic response about Covid leaving people alone if they're gathering for a good reason.
Either we're in a pandemic that requires significant restrictions on public freedoms or we're not. If it's OK for one group to meet then it should be OK for other groups to meet as well. The rules apply to everyone. You can't pick and choose depending on whether the group's reason for meeting is one that you personally find politically acceptable or not.
This isn't the argument. It's that it wouldn't be worse for most of us - and actually better for some. Most people already live their lives without ever interacting with the police. They don't see the police, they don't speak to the police, they don't need the police.
Even then, all the average citizen asks is that the police turn out when they're called, and increasingly, they're not even doing that. If something was kicking off in the street, I'd text my neighbours first, and then perhaps the police if it was something beyond our lawful ability to deal with.
The problem is that the police have accreted functions to themselves that no one else is allowed to carry out. We currently have no options but to deal with them, and those interactions are contingent. If you're white, rich, educated, male, you usually start with being treated with a modicum of respect. If you're not - you're brown, female, gay, poor, accented, whatever - then any encounter with the police can end up with you becoming the suspect, rather than the victim.
A police officer came along to where I was waiting, and asked if it was my car, no it was my parents’, what was the registration number, had I got any form of ID. I produced my driving licence, and my Law Society Student card which had my photo pasted into it. Within minutes she was back again, getting the car in front of me to move forward and the one behind me to back up, and moving the cones so that I could get out of the queue and on my way.
I have wondered since then whether they were concerned that there would be something happening which they didn’t want to have even a trainee lawyer witnessing.
My post was aimed at Marvin.
Money
Starting salary for a constable: around £25K + London allowance
Rises to around £40 after 7 years
Sergeant: 40-45K
Inspector: 51-56K
And so on..
And Dame Cressida is on around £230K + benefits
So if your promotion and rising up the pay scale is determined by obeying orders and towing the line, and you've got bills to pay....
Are you suggesting that our gallant police officers are in the job merely for the money? Surely there are other reasons - a nice uniform, a nice hard baton to hit citizens with etc. etc.
'I know a copper who plunged into a blazing building to save lives ...' therefore they must all be Saints.
'I know a copper who punched somebody ...' therefore they must all be bastards.
I do know a retired copper who told me how he 'lost it' out of frustration with conflicting orders from the top and with pressure from rival football fans which led him to grab an innocent teenager who happened to be passing by. When the boy's father remonstrated with him he came to his senses and let the lad go, mortified at how close he had come to venting his frustration on someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He said it haunts him more than anything else that happened during his police career.
I knew a lad who joined a picket line during the Miners' Strike and who gave a very balanced account of what he experienced. For most of the time there was good-natured banter between the police and pickets. Then a bunch of Socialist Workers' Party types turned up and things became ugly. It was clear that many of the miners didn't want them there. Some of these fellas had pads under their donkey jackets with nails sticking out so that if a scrum developed with the police they would cause some damage.
Equally, it was clear that some coppers and some miners were spoiling for a fight.
When the push started he was suited to the front - he is a little bloke smaller than me even - where he was hoisted off the ground by the throat by a copper. The officer noticed that he had been standing next to a vicar and so gently let him down to the ground.
For a while all hell broke loose until both sides fell back to lick their wounds. My friend and his pals, all students or recent graduates, set off for the bus but were set upon by miners annoyed at having a bunch of middle-class studenty types gate-crashing their protest.
A pretty messy day all round.
I don't think we should underestimate the complexity of any of this. The police were accused of too light an approach during the London riots of 2011. I was in London at the time and had an interesting and very balanced conversation about it with two Met officers on the street who had been in the thick of it.
Anyhow - those are all anecdotal observations again.
The argument is trying to work out what it is they're actually there for. Because if you have a sizeable minority (possibly even a majority) of the population who think the police are there to make their lives difficult, harass them and oppress them, then the purpose of policing has absolutely lost its way.
If the counter-argument is "well, it's a difficult job", I don't think anyone's going to disagree with you, but we have to ask the question "why is it a difficult job?" Actual crime (according the the National Crime Survey) is going down - it's just a third of the level in the mid 90s. The 'Defund the Police' (stupid name) movement made some entirely valid points that for most incidents to which the police were called, another service could have been contacted, more cheaply and more effectively. @ExclamationMark makes the exact same point about Street Pastors.
Yes, for certain it's a difficult job, but for much of the time, they're doing it really badly.
The problem with the 'few bad apples' style of explanation is that number of times it has been shown that large parts of the law enforcement establishment will carry water for 'bad apples' acting out (just to take one example from this week: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/16/met-deputy-too-busy-for-questions-on-spy-officers-relationship-with-woman )
So you have a situation where it appears that the penalty for acting out is less then the penalty for doing the right thing and reporting on a colleague for acting out - which have a range of consequences right up to the deadly.
I don't see how that can be fixed without fairly significant reform of the police -- which will involve a serious discussion about exactly what they are for (as per @Doc Tor above).
To keep the peace, ensure that the law is obeyed, and catch criminals so that they can be brought to justice.
No order of priority for those three purposes is intended, implied or to be inferred from that statement.
That was war. He jumped the barrier didn't he?
That was one of the lies they told to cover themselves.
They're failing on all three counts, though.
They don't keep the peace. That's down to most people living peaceable lives. Almost any intervention required can be done by good stewarding of events, or community workers paid for by the council in conjunction with the health services. And there's a good argument from minorities that police presence is entirely the opposite of peaceful.
They don't ensure that the law is obeyed. I walked to the shop earlier today. Pretty much every car that passed me in the 20mph limit was speeding - there's an electronic sign which says how fast they were going - and no one was warned, arrested or given a notice. Sure, they might arrest you if they see you breaking the law, but that's might, and chances increase if you're black or brown.
They don't catch criminals, either. Roughly 9 out of 10 crimes reported to the police (and that's way less than the number crimes committed) go uncharged. That's without even looking at the conviction rates.
It might be what we want them to be there for, but it's not what they're currently doing. So what are they doing?
It is challenging to measure the deterrent effect of policing, because it's always hard to measure things that didn't happen. You can change what the police do in a particular area, and perhaps attribute changes in crime rates to the change in police behaviour.
I don't think this says quite what you say it does. If, let's say, a habitual shoplifter gets nicked for theft, they may only be charged with the offence for which the police have evidence. If there's no evidence that they committed a load of other thefts ('cause the goods have long since been moved on), nobody's going to get charged for those crimes. But nevertheless, the criminal is in prison.
So I think you give a more accurate picture if you ask what fraction of criminals get caught, rather than what fraction of crimes get punished.
Many years ago we were burgled. A fingerprint team came and dusted for fingerprints. Lots of questions were asked to help them try and find the offenders.
My friend was burgled last week. They gave her a crime number. That was it, no visit, no questions, nothing.
Whatever that means.
And to be fair to the police i was chatting with, they were not in favour. In no small part because They felt that We (the Great British Public) don’t understand it and feel short changed.