At 5'1" and female, with a decade working with young people in alternative education I have often dealt with angry, violent young men and women, regularly more successfully than the bigger men, because I try to calm them down before using the physical restraint techniques we were all trained in. Even though our training taught we defused first, big men would often trigger more violence.
Also @Telford have you seen the IPCC report on Orgreave above? That South Yorkshire Police reported their own force in 2012 for their actions in 1984? And how much of that report was still redacted in 2016, as relevant to cases still being considered 30 years later? Do you still think the police were justified in all their previous actions in the miners' strike (and other related events)?
That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.
I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).
It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
You totally miss the point.
I do not. Your original contention was "The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.". When Orgreave was originally raised your contention changed to "It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond" (emphasis mine).
As above, it was the police that acted first, they were not 'responding' (and picketing at Orgreave itself was legal at the time).
You are totally wrong. The picketing was illegal.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
Orgreave was closely planned by Senior Police Officers some days before. It was an attempt to crush miners by force which changed the perception of the Police forever in the minds of the general public.
No longer are the Police "on side" unless it's their side or the whim of a politician.
I agree that the action was planned. Something had to be done to put a stop to the daily acts of aggression against the Police.
Beating people with sticks is a strange expression of "something had to be done." They decided to break the picket by any force and did so, riding innocent people down.
One Police Officer of my acquaintance still looks back at the time thankful for the extra overtime and for the opportunity to get stuck in. Goodness only knows what he's not prepared to tell me.
All the people who were arrested and charged were subsequently released as it was discovered that all the Police notebooks contained the same evidence virtually word for word. That's not the work of anyone acting in the public good - that's the corrupt act of people determined to get their own way.
The Police force involved - those paragons of truth and virtue South Yorkshire. Don't make me laugh, it cracks my make up.
At 5'1" and female, with a decade working with young people in alternative education I have often dealt with angry, violent young men and women, regularly more successfully than the bigger men, because I try to calm them down before using the physical restraint techniques we were all trained in. Even though our training taught we defused first, big men would often trigger more violence.
Also @Telford have you seen the IPCC report on Orgreave above? That South Yorkshire Police reported their own force in 2012 for their actions in 1984? And how much of that report was still redacted in 2016, as relevant to cases still being considered 30 years later? Do you still think the police were justified in all their previous actions in the miners' strike (and other related events)?
I am totally satisfied that the tactics of the Police at Orgreave were justified. The decision in 2012 was a betrayal. It would be impossible for me to defend all the previous Police actions in the strike as I have no knowledge of the behaviuour of individuals. It would also be imposasible for me to defend individual actions on 'that day' at Orgreave.
That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.
I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).
It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
You totally miss the point.
I do not. Your original contention was "The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.". When Orgreave was originally raised your contention changed to "It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond" (emphasis mine).
As above, it was the police that acted first, they were not 'responding' (and picketing at Orgreave itself was legal at the time).
You are totally wrong. The picketing was illegal.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
Orgreave was closely planned by Senior Police Officers some days before. It was an attempt to crush miners by force which changed the perception of the Police forever in the minds of the general public.
No longer are the Police "on side" unless it's their side or the whim of a politician.
I agree that the action was planned. Something had to be done to put a stop to the daily acts of aggression against the Police.
Beating people with sticks is a strange expression of "something had to be done." They decided to break the picket by any force and did so, riding innocent people down.
One Police Officer of my acquaintance still looks back at the time thankful for the extra overtime and for the opportunity to get stuck in. Goodness only knows what he's not prepared to tell me.
All the people who were arrested and charged were subsequently released as it was discovered that all the Police notebooks contained the same evidence virtually word for word. That's not the work of anyone acting in the public good - that's the corrupt act of people determined to get their own way.
The Police force involved - those paragons of truth and virtue South Yorkshire. Don't make me laugh, it cracks my make up.
You seriously believe ALL of those arrested to be innocent ?
At 5'1" and female, with a decade working with young people in alternative education I have often dealt with angry, violent young men and women, regularly more successfully than the bigger men, because I try to calm them down before using the physical restraint techniques we were all trained in. Even though our training taught we defused first, big men would often trigger more violence.
Also @Telford have you seen the IPCC report on Orgreave above? That South Yorkshire Police reported their own force in 2012 for their actions in 1984? And how much of that report was still redacted in 2016, as relevant to cases still being considered 30 years later? Do you still think the police were justified in all their previous actions in the miners' strike (and other related events)?
I am totally satisfied that the tactics of the Police at Orgreave were justified. The decision in 2012 was a betrayal. It would be impossible for me to defend all the previous Police actions in the strike as I have no knowledge of the behaviuour of individuals. It would also be imposasible for me to defend individual actions on 'that day' at Orgreave.
That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.
I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).
It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
You totally miss the point.
I do not. Your original contention was "The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.". When Orgreave was originally raised your contention changed to "It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond" (emphasis mine).
As above, it was the police that acted first, they were not 'responding' (and picketing at Orgreave itself was legal at the time).
You are totally wrong. The picketing was illegal.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
Orgreave was closely planned by Senior Police Officers some days before. It was an attempt to crush miners by force which changed the perception of the Police forever in the minds of the general public.
No longer are the Police "on side" unless it's their side or the whim of a politician.
I agree that the action was planned. Something had to be done to put a stop to the daily acts of aggression against the Police.
Beating people with sticks is a strange expression of "something had to be done." They decided to break the picket by any force and did so, riding innocent people down.
One Police Officer of my acquaintance still looks back at the time thankful for the extra overtime and for the opportunity to get stuck in. Goodness only knows what he's not prepared to tell me.
All the people who were arrested and charged were subsequently released as it was discovered that all the Police notebooks contained the same evidence virtually word for word. That's not the work of anyone acting in the public good - that's the corrupt act of people determined to get their own way.
The Police force involved - those paragons of truth and virtue South Yorkshire. Don't make me laugh, it cracks my make up.
You seriously believe ALL of those arrested to be innocent ?
I didn't say they were innocent - I don't know if they were or if they weren't. What was proven is that South Yorkshire Police were guilty of perverting the course of justice, hence the dismissed charges for ALL those arrested. Institutionalised perjury.
Why was 2012 a betrayal? It seems to be a light bulb moment rather like Scarman and Macpherson.
I’m a 4 foot 11 female ex-nurse and I have regularly had to deal with drunken or mentally ill/distressed patients and visitors and de-escalate difficult situations. I’ve also broken up a domestic argument in the middle of an empty street, while visiting an unfamiliar town for a conference, because I feared for the woman’s safety.
All the people who were arrested and charged were subsequently released as it was discovered that all the Police notebooks contained the same evidence virtually word for word. That's not the work of anyone acting in the public good - that's the corrupt act of people determined to get their own way.
The Police force involved - those paragons of truth and virtue South Yorkshire. Don't make me laugh, it cracks my make up.
Didn't some of the higher-ups in the South Yorkshire Police also suppress evidence in the Hillsborough disaster a few years later? I think the documentary said there were witness statements that were later found to be altered to cast the police in a better light?
At 5'1" and female, with a decade working with young people in alternative education I have often dealt with angry, violent young men and women, regularly more successfully than the bigger men, because I try to calm them down before using the physical restraint techniques we were all trained in. Even though our training taught we defused first, big men would often trigger more violence.
Also @Telford have you seen the IPCC report on Orgreave above? That South Yorkshire Police reported their own force in 2012 for their actions in 1984? And how much of that report was still redacted in 2016, as relevant to cases still being considered 30 years later? Do you still think the police were justified in all their previous actions in the miners' strike (and other related events)?
I am totally satisfied that the tactics of the Police at Orgreave were justified. The decision in 2012 was a betrayal. It would be impossible for me to defend all the previous Police actions in the strike as I have no knowledge of the behaviuour of individuals. It would also be imposasible for me to defend individual actions on 'that day' at Orgreave.
That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.
I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).
It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
You totally miss the point.
I do not. Your original contention was "The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.". When Orgreave was originally raised your contention changed to "It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond" (emphasis mine).
As above, it was the police that acted first, they were not 'responding' (and picketing at Orgreave itself was legal at the time).
You are totally wrong. The picketing was illegal.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
Orgreave was closely planned by Senior Police Officers some days before. It was an attempt to crush miners by force which changed the perception of the Police forever in the minds of the general public.
No longer are the Police "on side" unless it's their side or the whim of a politician.
I agree that the action was planned. Something had to be done to put a stop to the daily acts of aggression against the Police.
Beating people with sticks is a strange expression of "something had to be done." They decided to break the picket by any force and did so, riding innocent people down.
One Police Officer of my acquaintance still looks back at the time thankful for the extra overtime and for the opportunity to get stuck in. Goodness only knows what he's not prepared to tell me.
All the people who were arrested and charged were subsequently released as it was discovered that all the Police notebooks contained the same evidence virtually word for word. That's not the work of anyone acting in the public good - that's the corrupt act of people determined to get their own way.
The Police force involved - those paragons of truth and virtue South Yorkshire. Don't make me laugh, it cracks my make up.
You seriously believe ALL of those arrested to be innocent ?
I didn't say they were innocent - I don't know if they were or if they weren't. What was proven is that South Yorkshire Police were guilty of perverting the course of justice, hence the dismissed charges for ALL those arrested. Institutionalised perjury.
Why was 2012 a betrayal? It seems to be a light bulb moment rather like Scarman and Macpherson.
What were the punishments for those found guilty of perverting the course of justice ?
What were the punishments for those found guilty of perverting the course of justice ?
A few minutes searching says that South Yorkshire Police paid £425,000 compensation and £100,000 costs, but there were no individual prosecutions. In 2016 Amber Rudd, then Home Secretary, announced there would be no further enquiries. The time-honoured Tory approach of not letting facts bother the public. I'm sure you could have found that yourself.
What were the punishments for those found guilty of perverting the course of justice ?
A few minutes searching says that South Yorkshire Police paid £425,000 compensation and £100,000 costs, but there were no individual prosecutions. In 2016 Amber Rudd, then Home Secretary, announced there would be no further enquiries. The time-honoured Tory approach of not letting facts bother the public. I'm sure you could have found that yourself.
I was certainly aware that no officers were prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.
The fact that all the officers were instructed to record the same evidence was total incompetence. Officers should recorded their own evidence.
The only losers were the residents of South Yorkshire and the UK tax payer
I was certainly aware that no officers were prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.
The fact that all the officers were instructed to record the same evidence was total incompetence. Officers should recorded their own evidence.
Does it not bother you that 'lack of evidence' and 'recorded the same evidence' are same issue? That the reason there's no evidence of police wrongdoing is because the police wrote that evidence?
I was certainly aware that no officers were prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.
The fact that all the officers were instructed to record the same evidence was total incompetence. Officers should recorded their own evidence.
Does it not bother you that 'lack of evidence' and 'recorded the same evidence' are same issue? That the reason there's no evidence of police wrongdoing is because the police wrote that evidence?
Police Officers were not prosecuted because they was insufficient evidence to get a conviction. 72 Police officers were injured by innocent peaceful pickets.
And how many pickets were injured by the innocent peaceful police?
Not sure. There must be a record somewhere.
Have you heard of this invention called "the internet"? It's marvellous, you can access several different search engines which will find information really quickly from those records you know exist. Like, the official reports stated 51 strikers were injured - though, probably that's of the "needing medical treatment" variety of injury, rather than just a few bruises.
What were the punishments for those found guilty of perverting the course of justice ?
A few minutes searching says that South Yorkshire Police paid £425,000 compensation and £100,000 costs, but there were no individual prosecutions. In 2016 Amber Rudd, then Home Secretary, announced there would be no further enquiries. The time-honoured Tory approach of not letting facts bother the public. I'm sure you could have found that yourself.
I was certainly aware that no officers were prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.
The fact that all the officers were instructed to record the same evidence was total incompetence. Officers should recorded their own evidence.
The only losers were the residents of South Yorkshire and the UK tax payer
Not incompetence - lies and perversion (in the legal sense of not telling the truth). The incompetence comes in not calling out those who instructed them to do it and blindly following like sheep.
The losers are actually the Police. They do not have the confidence of the public unless you happen to have a good personal experience. I have as a matter of fact, with a Senior Officer who was open about the prejudice that bedevils the service and the canteen culture of aggression which has still not changed. The latter manifests itself in Police Officers' own contribution to Domestic Violence where they are less likely to be convicted. I also met a lot of children with police parents who are suffering as a result of the attitudes in the home.
What astounds me is a throw away line on the BBC that half of LA's budget goes on policing.
Looks like a third of the total:
"The total budget for the LAPD is $3.14 billion."
"April 20, 2020 1:04 PM UPDATED7:58 PM
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti unveiled a $10.5-billion budget"
Over half 'the unrestricted General Fund':
"DEFUND THE POLICE: 54% of the unrestricted General Fund is currently allocated to LAPD."
Bit like Brian McLaren's critique of Batman taken up in the awesome Joaquin Phoenix Joker and risibly by Tony Blair: get tough on the causes of crime - social injustice.
Just for comparison, policing for the whole of the UK has a budget of around £12.3 billion. Given that this includes things handled at the federal level in the US the comparison is quite astonishing.
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
The lack of community policing in the UK is not helping their reputation either.
Last year I was the victim of 2 crimes and had to report a third to the police as the culprits scarpered. When our car and next door's car (both Toyota Prius, so hybrids) had the catalytic converters stolen in separate incidents, they never found the culprits, even though for the second one we could tell them the false reg of the getaway car as it was driving off. They have arrested some people regionally who had rather a lot of them in a warehouse with no explanation, but that is crawling through the legal system. (Japanese cars have a lot of valuable metal in the cat, and hybrid ones tend to be cleaner, so locally there has been a spate of people just cutting them off cars.)
The other case was I had my purse taken from my bag on public transport and the contactless cards used. The police insisted that the card use had to be handled separately by Action Fraud. So although I could tell them exactly when I was travelling, so they could get the CCTV footage, and exactly which local supermarkets they used them in (and I expect the likes of Tesco have all their tills on camera) it was all disjointed, and they took an age to do anything, so they just told me they couldn't get any evidence.
So as far as I'm concerned, locally unless it's drugs (mostly cannabis grows, where it is fairly easy to get results) or something really serious, reporting stuff to the police is a fairly futile exercise.
I suspect that there's been some sort of cost/benefit analysis carried out.
I think it's simpler than that. The tories spent the last decade making "efficiency savings" and now it's all the police can do to keep up with filing the reporting paperwork. Plus with cuts to benefits, social work, mental health and the whole social support network police are the ones left holding the bag for anyone in crisis.
The question is, how about diverting about 1/3 of that budget to community services? Things like mental health, drug rehab, housing the homeless etc.
When I worked for Spokane County it was said about 1/3 of the county jail housed people who were mentally ill. Why not get them into rehabilitation centers or group homes or suitable housing with wrap-around services to make sure they can stabilize and even find good-paying jobs that will give them a sense of worth.
Our country made a mistake when we started calling police enforcement a War on Drugs (usually meant arresting more black people); or a War on Crime (again meant arresting more black people). It gave the police the excuse to militarize themselves, putting more distance between them and the people.
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
Just tell him to behave himself like he normally does and he will be fine
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
Just tell him to behave himself like he normally does and he will be fine
I had my purse taken from my bag on public transport and the contactless cards used. The police insisted that the card use had to be handled separately by Action Fraud. So although I could tell them exactly when I was travelling, so they could get the CCTV footage, and exactly which local supermarkets they used them in (and I expect the likes of Tesco have all their tills on camera) it was all disjointed, and they took an age to do anything, so they just told me they couldn't get any evidence. :rage
Several years ago, a friend was staying in the house of an old friend of his. There were other houseguests there also. My friend had his computer stolen by one of those houseguests, and they demanded money from him to get it back. He reported it to the police. Even though he could tell the police exactly who it was who stole the computer, and that they were holding it for ransom, the police told him that they were too busy with other matters to be bothered with such a petty offense.
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
Just tell him to behave himself like he normally does and he will be fine
And you know that how?
This is exactly the thing. I don't know that. I've been at the wrong end of police action when peacefully protesting. It's a complete crapshoot as to what the police commander on the ground is going to do, whether they've got orders from above, or whether they're acting on their own cognisance. He knows how to stay out of trouble, and will be with wise people. That sometimes is simply not enough if the police decide to kick off or make an example of them.
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
Just tell him to behave himself like he normally does and he will be fine
And you know that how?
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
Police Officers were not prosecuted because they was insufficient evidence to get a conviction. 72 Police officers were injured by innocent peaceful pickets.
Hey, speaking of insufficient evidence, the police report on the shooting of Breonna Taylor is now publicly available.
Nearly three months after Louisville Metro Police officers fatally shot Breonna Taylor in her South End apartment, the department has released the incident report from that night.
Except, it is almost entirely blank.
The four-page report lists the time, date, case number, incident location and the victim's name — Breonna Shaquelle Taylor — as well as the fact that she is a 26-year-old black female.
But it redacts Taylor's street number, apartment number and date of birth — all of which have been widely reported.
And it lists her injuries as "none," even though she was shot at least eight times and died on her hallway floor in a pool of blood, according to attorneys for her family.
It lists the charges as "death investigation — LMPD involved" but checks the "no" box under "forced entry," even though officers used a battering ram to knock in Taylor's apartment door.
It also lists under the "Offenders" portion of the report the three officers who fired in Taylor's apartment, fatally shooting her — Sgt. Jon Mattingly, 47; Myles Cosgrove, 42; and Brett Hankison, 44.
But the most important portion of the report — the "narrative" of events that spells out what happened March 13 — has only two words: "PIU investigation."
And the rest of the report has no information filled in at all.
Sounds like another case of "insufficient evidence". A less charitable person might conclude the the Louisville Police have something to hide, but as @Telford helpfully reminds us the presumption of innocence isn't just a procedural standard adhered to by courts of law, it's mandatory in all human interactions.
BTW, how does one go about reporting a crime to the police if you have to presume that the alleged perpetrator is innocent?
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
Just tell him to behave himself like he normally does and he will be fine
And you know that how?
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
Just tell him to behave himself like he normally does and he will be fine
And you know that how?
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
Police Officers were not prosecuted because they was insufficient evidence to get a conviction. 72 Police officers were injured by innocent peaceful pickets.
Hey, speaking of insufficient evidence, the police report on the shooting of Breonna Taylor is now publicly available.
Nearly three months after Louisville Metro Police officers fatally shot Breonna Taylor in her South End apartment, the department has released the incident report from that night.
Except, it is almost entirely blank.
The four-page report lists the time, date, case number, incident location and the victim's name — Breonna Shaquelle Taylor — as well as the fact that she is a 26-year-old black female.
But it redacts Taylor's street number, apartment number and date of birth — all of which have been widely reported.
And it lists her injuries as "none," even though she was shot at least eight times and died on her hallway floor in a pool of blood, according to attorneys for her family.
It lists the charges as "death investigation — LMPD involved" but checks the "no" box under "forced entry," even though officers used a battering ram to knock in Taylor's apartment door.
It also lists under the "Offenders" portion of the report the three officers who fired in Taylor's apartment, fatally shooting her — Sgt. Jon Mattingly, 47; Myles Cosgrove, 42; and Brett Hankison, 44.
But the most important portion of the report — the "narrative" of events that spells out what happened March 13 — has only two words: "PIU investigation."
And the rest of the report has no information filled in at all.
Sounds like another case of "insufficient evidence". A less charitable person might conclude the the Louisville Police have something to hide, but as @Telford helpfully reminds us the presumption of innocence isn't just a procedural standard adhered to by courts of law, it's mandatory in all human interactions.
If the police arrest someone, they are obviously guilty, otherwise why would they be arrested?
Hard to see why judges and juries even exist
You need to know that in the UK, a Police officer is allowed to arrest any person suspected of committing an arrestable offence. It is a matter for the CPS to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and for the court to decide on their guilt or otherwise.
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
Just tell him to behave himself like he normally does and he will be fine
And you know that how?
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
If you don't know, you may have a problem.
In any case, are they still allowed to be called Bobbies ?
I see nothing in the first amendment about the right to riot and loot. If a protest is peaceful, the Police have nothing to respond to.
See, you're already a (self-declared) expert on the proper parameters of crowd control in American policing and First Amendment jurisprudence. It should be noted that your comment about peaceful protest came five days after American police used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square across from the White House.
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
That was quick. From presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt in less than 24 hours.
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
Your claim that you presume the police only arrest the innocent compares poorly with your claim that the police only arrest those who aren't "well behaved".
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
If you don't know, you may have a problem.
In any case, are they still allowed to be called Bobbies ?
Well, it does beg the question. Does "well behaved" cover crimes that are conducted in a well-mannered way, like fraud? You're not allowed to arrest Jack Abramoff because he's so polite?
I see nothing in the first amendment about the right to riot and loot. If a protest is peaceful, the Police have nothing to respond to.
See, you're already a (self-declared) expert on the proper parameters of crowd control in American policing and First Amendment jurisprudence. It should be noted that your comment about peaceful protest came five days after American police used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square across from the White House.
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
That was quick. From presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt in less than 24 hours.
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
Your claim that you presume the police only arrest the innocent compares poorly with your claim that the police only arrest those who aren't "well behaved".
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
If you don't know, you may have a problem.
In any case, are they still allowed to be called Bobbies ?
Well, it does beg the question. Does "well behaved" cover crimes that are conducted in a well-mannered way, like fraud? You're not allowed to arrest Jack Abramoff because he's so polite?
I see no confusion. If a person is well behaved, the Police would not be focusing on them. The more a person badly behaves, the more likely it is that they will be arrested. It's all common sense.
I see nothing in the first amendment about the right to riot and loot. If a protest is peaceful, the Police have nothing to respond to.
See, you're already a (self-declared) expert on the proper parameters of crowd control in American policing and First Amendment jurisprudence. It should be noted that your comment about peaceful protest came five days after American police used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square across from the White House.
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
That was quick. From presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt in less than 24 hours.
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
Your claim that you presume the police only arrest the innocent compares poorly with your claim that the police only arrest those who aren't "well behaved".
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
If you don't know, you may have a problem.
In any case, are they still allowed to be called Bobbies ?
Well, it does beg the question. Does "well behaved" cover crimes that are conducted in a well-mannered way, like fraud? You're not allowed to arrest Jack Abramoff because he's so polite?
I see no confusion. If a person is well behaved, the Police would not be focusing on them. The more a person badly behaves, the more likely it is that they will be arrested. It's all common sense.
I see nothing in the first amendment about the right to riot and loot. If a protest is peaceful, the Police have nothing to respond to.
See, you're already a (self-declared) expert on the proper parameters of crowd control in American policing and First Amendment jurisprudence. It should be noted that your comment about peaceful protest came five days after American police used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square across from the White House.
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
That was quick. From presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt in less than 24 hours.
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
Your claim that you presume the police only arrest the innocent compares poorly with your claim that the police only arrest those who aren't "well behaved".
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
If you don't know, you may have a problem.
In any case, are they still allowed to be called Bobbies ?
Well, it does beg the question. Does "well behaved" cover crimes that are conducted in a well-mannered way, like fraud? You're not allowed to arrest Jack Abramoff because he's so polite?
I see no confusion. If a person is well behaved, the Police would not be focusing on them. The more a person badly behaves, the more likely it is that they will be arrested. It's all common sense.
Common sense? Probably.
Reality? All too often, no.
My advice to anyone attending what is planned to be a peaceful protest is to distance themselves any anyone who clearly intended to act otherwise
I see no confusion. If a person is well behaved, the Police would not be focusing on them. The more a person badly behaves, the more likely it is that they will be arrested. It's all common sense.
It should be noted that none of the officers involved in the aforementioned Breonna Taylor shooting has been arrested, so your "bad behavior = arrest" formula would seem to have at least a few exceptions, caveats, and codicils. Either that, or you don't consider police shooting a woman (at least) eight times in her own home to be behaving badly.
My advice to anyone attending what is planned to be a peaceful protest is to distance themselves any anyone who clearly intended to act otherwise
But if you're trying to distance yourself from the police they sometimes view that as suspicious! I'm not sure I buy this whole "John Lewis had it coming" line.
Over the past week, I have seen numerous incidents of 4 or more police officers or prison guards piling in on people and all 4 pinning them to the ground. All the incidents are so similar that it looks like a trained response to something the victim does.
I wonder whether anyone might have some info on this, or be able to point me to an article about it. I've tried a couple of different google searches but can't pick anything up.
While I personally had no problem with the police in my community, my one son did. When he was in high school, he started hanging out with a group of kids that were known as hoods. Not that they were "bad" kids (we are a semi-rural community) because they did not fit in with any other high school klick. The hoods would accept anyone. Yes, there were some minor brushes with the law, but one officer, in particular, seemed to have it out for my son. He would bully my boy any chance the got. So, police bullying does happen.
I see no confusion. If a person is well behaved, the Police would not be focusing on them. The more a person badly behaves, the more likely it is that they will be arrested. It's all common sense.
It should be noted that none of the officers involved in the aforementioned Breonna Taylor shooting has been arrested, so your "bad behavior = arrest" formula would seem to have at least a few exceptions, caveats, and codicils. Either that, or you don't consider police shooting a woman (at least) eight times in her own home to be behaving badly.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
My advice to anyone attending what is planned to be a peaceful protest is to distance themselves any anyone who clearly intended to act otherwise
But if you're trying to distance yourself from the police they sometimes view that as suspicious! I'm not sure I buy this whole "John Lewis had it coming" line.
Not getting yourself in violence is certainly not suspicious. It's just common sense.
Common sense says police will be abusive. The distribution of good people and bad people is going to be the same in the police as outside the police, if no other factors are present. Add in power and authority with insufficient accountability and the odds of malfeasance are increased. The question then becomes not will police act badly, but how many and how often.
To get to your portrayal, police would need to be exemplary beyond human capacity.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
No. Just no. You don't get to argue that the Minneapolis Police Department, specifically and particularly, does not need any kind of systematic reform and then claim to have never heard of this strange, far-off land called "America". If you know nothing about America, much less American policing, you wouldn't be issuing such definitive statements. Things like your claim that the peaceful Lafayette Square protesters must have been violent or the police wouldn't have tear gassed them. For reference, the blocks around the White House are the some of the most heavily surveilled real estate in America. If any of the Lafayette Square protesters were violent we would have seen footage by now. Instead we get Trump supporters engaging in semantic quibbles about what constitutes "tear gas" and whether or not pepper spray counts as a "chemical irritant".
So having people like you issue blanket exculpations of American policing followed by statements that "I have no knowledge of events in the USA" is downright offensive. If you know nothing about America, say nothing about America. If you make a specific policy analysis about a particular American police department be prepared to defend it rather that hiding behind the cowardly pronouncement that you don't know what you're talking about.
I see nothing in the first amendment about the right to riot and loot. If a protest is peaceful, the Police have nothing to respond to.
See, you're already a (self-declared) expert on the proper parameters of crowd control in American policing and First Amendment jurisprudence. It should be noted that your comment about peaceful protest came five days after American police used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square across from the White House.
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
That was quick. From presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt in less than 24 hours.
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
Your claim that you presume the police only arrest the innocent compares poorly with your claim that the police only arrest those who aren't "well behaved".
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
If you don't know, you may have a problem.
In any case, are they still allowed to be called Bobbies ?
Well, it does beg the question. Does "well behaved" cover crimes that are conducted in a well-mannered way, like fraud? You're not allowed to arrest Jack Abramoff because he's so polite?
I see no confusion. If a person is well behaved, the Police would not be focusing on them. The more a person badly behaves, the more likely it is that they will be arrested. It's all common sense.
Common sense? Probably.
Reality? All too often, no.
Common sense isn't that common. Anyway what is it and who defines it?
Common sense says police will be abusive. The distribution of good people and bad people is going to be the same in the police as outside the police, if no other factors are present. Add in power and authority with insufficient accountability and the odds of malfeasance are increased. The question then becomes not will police act badly, but how many and how often.
To get to your portrayal, police would need to be exemplary beyond human capacity.
Good people are bad people sometimes, and will sometimes be abusive. That's more than just trite. Different people handle stressful situations differently, and people handle some stressful situations better than others. Policing is one of a number of high-stress professions where physical harm to yourself is a possibility. To me, the Bernie Sanders call for good pay, good resourcing and good training is critical.
LB, I realise you are engaged in a frustrating conversation with someone else, and you probably know all this stuff. I'm ninja bombing you...
Comments
Also @Telford have you seen the IPCC report on Orgreave above? That South Yorkshire Police reported their own force in 2012 for their actions in 1984? And how much of that report was still redacted in 2016, as relevant to cases still being considered 30 years later? Do you still think the police were justified in all their previous actions in the miners' strike (and other related events)?
Beating people with sticks is a strange expression of "something had to be done." They decided to break the picket by any force and did so, riding innocent people down.
One Police Officer of my acquaintance still looks back at the time thankful for the extra overtime and for the opportunity to get stuck in. Goodness only knows what he's not prepared to tell me.
All the people who were arrested and charged were subsequently released as it was discovered that all the Police notebooks contained the same evidence virtually word for word. That's not the work of anyone acting in the public good - that's the corrupt act of people determined to get their own way.
The Police force involved - those paragons of truth and virtue South Yorkshire. Don't make me laugh, it cracks my make up.
You seriously believe ALL of those arrested to be innocent ?
I didn't say they were innocent - I don't know if they were or if they weren't. What was proven is that South Yorkshire Police were guilty of perverting the course of justice, hence the dismissed charges for ALL those arrested. Institutionalised perjury.
Why was 2012 a betrayal? It seems to be a light bulb moment rather like Scarman and Macpherson.
Didn't some of the higher-ups in the South Yorkshire Police also suppress evidence in the Hillsborough disaster a few years later? I think the documentary said there were witness statements that were later found to be altered to cast the police in a better light?
:notworthy:
What were the punishments for those found guilty of perverting the course of justice ?
Of course not I am obliged to presume everyone to be innocent untill convicted.
I was certainly aware that no officers were prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.
The fact that all the officers were instructed to record the same evidence was total incompetence. Officers should recorded their own evidence.
The only losers were the residents of South Yorkshire and the UK tax payer
Does it not bother you that 'lack of evidence' and 'recorded the same evidence' are same issue? That the reason there's no evidence of police wrongdoing is because the police wrote that evidence?
Police Officers were not prosecuted because they was insufficient evidence to get a conviction. 72 Police officers were injured by innocent peaceful pickets.
It's hard to know because the police recorded most of the beatings as self-inflicted.
Not sure. There must be a record somewhere.
Not incompetence - lies and perversion (in the legal sense of not telling the truth). The incompetence comes in not calling out those who instructed them to do it and blindly following like sheep.
The losers are actually the Police. They do not have the confidence of the public unless you happen to have a good personal experience. I have as a matter of fact, with a Senior Officer who was open about the prejudice that bedevils the service and the canteen culture of aggression which has still not changed. The latter manifests itself in Police Officers' own contribution to Domestic Violence where they are less likely to be convicted. I also met a lot of children with police parents who are suffering as a result of the attitudes in the home.
Looks like a third of the total:
"The total budget for the LAPD is $3.14 billion."
"April 20, 2020 1:04 PM UPDATED7:58 PM
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti unveiled a $10.5-billion budget"
Over half 'the unrestricted General Fund':
"DEFUND THE POLICE: 54% of the unrestricted General Fund is currently allocated to LAPD."
Bit like Brian McLaren's critique of Batman taken up in the awesome Joaquin Phoenix Joker and risibly by Tony Blair: get tough on the causes of crime - social injustice.
My son (so pale they can dispense with an X-ray at hospital just by holding him up to a bright light) is going to be joining the local BLM protest on Saturday.
I'm far more concerned about any potential interactions he has with the police than I am about the fash. And he comes from a nice 'middle class' professional white family whose main source of income is within the criminal justice system.
If anyone should be onside with the police, it's us. God forbid if we were brown.
Last year I was the victim of 2 crimes and had to report a third to the police as the culprits scarpered. When our car and next door's car (both Toyota Prius, so hybrids) had the catalytic converters stolen in separate incidents, they never found the culprits, even though for the second one we could tell them the false reg of the getaway car as it was driving off. They have arrested some people regionally who had rather a lot of them in a warehouse with no explanation, but that is crawling through the legal system. (Japanese cars have a lot of valuable metal in the cat, and hybrid ones tend to be cleaner, so locally there has been a spate of people just cutting them off cars.)
The other case was I had my purse taken from my bag on public transport and the contactless cards used. The police insisted that the card use had to be handled separately by Action Fraud. So although I could tell them exactly when I was travelling, so they could get the CCTV footage, and exactly which local supermarkets they used them in (and I expect the likes of Tesco have all their tills on camera) it was all disjointed, and they took an age to do anything, so they just told me they couldn't get any evidence.
So as far as I'm concerned, locally unless it's drugs (mostly cannabis grows, where it is fairly easy to get results) or something really serious, reporting stuff to the police is a fairly futile exercise.
I think it's simpler than that. The tories spent the last decade making "efficiency savings" and now it's all the police can do to keep up with filing the reporting paperwork. Plus with cuts to benefits, social work, mental health and the whole social support network police are the ones left holding the bag for anyone in crisis.
The question is, how about diverting about 1/3 of that budget to community services? Things like mental health, drug rehab, housing the homeless etc.
When I worked for Spokane County it was said about 1/3 of the county jail housed people who were mentally ill. Why not get them into rehabilitation centers or group homes or suitable housing with wrap-around services to make sure they can stabilize and even find good-paying jobs that will give them a sense of worth.
Our country made a mistake when we started calling police enforcement a War on Drugs (usually meant arresting more black people); or a War on Crime (again meant arresting more black people). It gave the police the excuse to militarize themselves, putting more distance between them and the people.
Just tell him to behave himself like he normally does and he will be fine
And you know that how?
Several years ago, a friend was staying in the house of an old friend of his. There were other houseguests there also. My friend had his computer stolen by one of those houseguests, and they demanded money from him to get it back. He reported it to the police. Even though he could tell the police exactly who it was who stole the computer, and that they were holding it for ransom, the police told him that they were too busy with other matters to be bothered with such a petty offense.
This is exactly the thing. I don't know that. I've been at the wrong end of police action when peacefully protesting. It's a complete crapshoot as to what the police commander on the ground is going to do, whether they've got orders from above, or whether they're acting on their own cognisance. He knows how to stay out of trouble, and will be with wise people. That sometimes is simply not enough if the police decide to kick off or make an example of them.
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
Hey, speaking of insufficient evidence, the police report on the shooting of Breonna Taylor is now publicly available.
Sounds like another case of "insufficient evidence". A less charitable person might conclude the the Louisville Police have something to hide, but as @Telford helpfully reminds us the presumption of innocence isn't just a procedural standard adhered to by courts of law, it's mandatory in all human interactions.
BTW, how does one go about reporting a crime to the police if you have to presume that the alleged perpetrator is innocent?
That was quick. From presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt in less than 24 hours.
Hard to see why judges and juries even exist
Merely police practice [/Sir Humphry]
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
I know nothing about policing in the USA. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
You need to know that in the UK, a Police officer is allowed to arrest any person suspected of committing an arrestable offence. It is a matter for the CPS to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and for the court to decide on their guilt or otherwise.
If you don't know, you may have a problem.
In any case, are they still allowed to be called Bobbies ?
Hey now, don't be so modest!
See, you're already a (self-declared) expert on the proper parameters of crowd control in American policing and First Amendment jurisprudence. It should be noted that your comment about peaceful protest came five days after American police used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square across from the White House.
Your claim that you presume the police only arrest the innocent compares poorly with your claim that the police only arrest those who aren't "well behaved".
Well, it does beg the question. Does "well behaved" cover crimes that are conducted in a well-mannered way, like fraud? You're not allowed to arrest Jack Abramoff because he's so polite?
I see no confusion. If a person is well behaved, the Police would not be focusing on them. The more a person badly behaves, the more likely it is that they will be arrested. It's all common sense.
Reality? All too often, no.
My advice to anyone attending what is planned to be a peaceful protest is to distance themselves any anyone who clearly intended to act otherwise
It should be noted that none of the officers involved in the aforementioned Breonna Taylor shooting has been arrested, so your "bad behavior = arrest" formula would seem to have at least a few exceptions, caveats, and codicils. Either that, or you don't consider police shooting a woman (at least) eight times in her own home to be behaving badly.
But if you're trying to distance yourself from the police they sometimes view that as suspicious! I'm not sure I buy this whole "John Lewis had it coming" line.
I wonder whether anyone might have some info on this, or be able to point me to an article about it. I've tried a couple of different google searches but can't pick anything up.
Eventually, that officer moved on, thank God.
Here is a story about how one city did get rid of its police.
Not getting yourself in violence is certainly not suspicious. It's just common sense.
Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host.
To get to your portrayal, police would need to be exemplary beyond human capacity.
No. Just no. You don't get to argue that the Minneapolis Police Department, specifically and particularly, does not need any kind of systematic reform and then claim to have never heard of this strange, far-off land called "America". If you know nothing about America, much less American policing, you wouldn't be issuing such definitive statements. Things like your claim that the peaceful Lafayette Square protesters must have been violent or the police wouldn't have tear gassed them. For reference, the blocks around the White House are the some of the most heavily surveilled real estate in America. If any of the Lafayette Square protesters were violent we would have seen footage by now. Instead we get Trump supporters engaging in semantic quibbles about what constitutes "tear gas" and whether or not pepper spray counts as a "chemical irritant".
So having people like you issue blanket exculpations of American policing followed by statements that "I have no knowledge of events in the USA" is downright offensive. If you know nothing about America, say nothing about America. If you make a specific policy analysis about a particular American police department be prepared to defend it rather that hiding behind the cowardly pronouncement that you don't know what you're talking about.
Common sense isn't that common. Anyway what is it and who defines it?
Good people are bad people sometimes, and will sometimes be abusive. That's more than just trite. Different people handle stressful situations differently, and people handle some stressful situations better than others. Policing is one of a number of high-stress professions where physical harm to yourself is a possibility. To me, the Bernie Sanders call for good pay, good resourcing and good training is critical.
LB, I realise you are engaged in a frustrating conversation with someone else, and you probably know all this stuff. I'm ninja bombing you...