Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: "It is very difficult to understand what justifies a gargantuan police officer assaulting a smaller woman for having the audacity to complain."Take a good look at the video. Is the harridan protestor just ‘complaining’, as Shami claims…?
No, she’s screaming and swearing into the officer’s face and goading him, presumably with the hope of getting something on camera for later use. As Inspector Gadget’s blog points out, try doing that in almost any other country in the world, and see if you get away with a slap.
And I’d lay off the ‘oh, she’s just a weak and feeble woman being abused by a uniformed brute!’ angle, if I were you. It’s the 21st century, sweetie, not the 18th…
22 comments:
Careful Julia. Smart money is on Mrs Chakrabarti as a future power, although she may already harbour a preference for some title other than PM. Her angelic and beguiling face fronts an utterly ruthless force and potential World leader. Call me cynical, but one day we may hear her songs on privacy and liberties, in a different key.
Just because "in almost any other country in the world" the harridan in question would have got more than a slapping does not justify what is shown on the video. I had always believed (until the last 10-15 years) that our police were above this kind of thing.
Moreover, just because the demonstrators are the scum of the earth does not mean that the police should not be expected to behave in a disciplined manner even under extreme provocation. That the policeman in question had removed any marks of identification argues that he, at least, was prepared to go beyond any reasonable (ie legal) response to provocation.
OTOH I don't hear Shami moaning about the police handling of the anti-anti military demonstrations in Luton on 9 April. Of course not: Liberty is only in favour of those exercising Liberty's own narrow interpretation of liberty.
The tactic used by the protestor is designed to provoke that sort of response from the police. That's why they have people filming it.
Dr Gray - if there is money on Mrs Chakrabarti to be a future power I can assure you it isn't "smart".
"...just because the demonstrators are the scum of the earth does not mean that the police should not be expected to behave in a disciplined manner even under extreme provocation."
And if that 'disciplined manner' includes the judicious application of force to prevent a situation escalating...?
A "disciplined manner" would have been the arrest of said demonstrator under any number of laws designed to deal with this kind of thing. Had she resisted arrest then the application of reasonable force would be not only understandable but legal.
The police manifestly fell into a trap of being provoked so that this video could be released to show how thuggish the police are. It is not legal (I believe) - it is certainly not authorised police practice - for the police to remove items of ID so that they can respond violently and possibly illegally to provocation. Why else would PC X remove his ID?
I hold the police to a higher standard of conduct than do you. On one hand the sight of this cow being slapped is satisfying since the application of condign punishment to a useful idiot is always a joy. However, on the other hand, seeing the deliberate, apparently illegal and (possibly) pre-meditated act by a policeman gives me no comfort at all.
All true.
But if you're a policeman, this sort of thing comes with the territory.
He should not have lashed out whatever the provocation; if you are correct in your description of her behaviour, then an arrest would been perfectly reasonable.
As for the officers removing their numbers, it is deeply, deeply disturbing because it must have been sanctioned by their senior officers. Why? A worrying development (to put it very mildly) which should be nipped in the bud at once.
Covering up of the ID does indeed look bad, I agree with you there.
But arresting every protestor who acts like this is going to severely deplete the police numbers. Another tactic used by the protestors to attain their ultimate goal - breaking through the cordon and causing damage and chaos.
I see Brown's character reflected in this police behaviour. It is not nice. The left were far more violent in the miners' dispute, yet we had few if any of these kinds of incidents.
"But arresting every protestor who acts like this is going to severely deplete the police numbers."
"Arrest" in these circumstances means grabbing the perp sharpish and slinging her in the back of a police van for later charging (or release). The arresting officers would then return to the front line.
As an aside, police tactics like "kettling" are a particularly effective method of dealing with violent demonstrations. I should add, though, to be applied only in violent demos. The police knew this one was going to be violent (no matter the claims that "only a few anarchists" might feel the need to commit criminal damage) and acted accordingly. There was no requirement for police thuggery. Tom Paine's remarks on this and related matters might be of interest.
""Arrest" in these circumstances means grabbing the perp sharpish and slinging her in the back of a police van for later charging (or release). The arresting officers would then return to the front line."And if there's enough decoys that you run out of police vans?
"There was no requirement for police thuggery. Tom Paine's remarks on this and related matters might be of interest."I'm not sure that I'd call what's depicted in that video 'thuggery'. He does enough to get her to back off - he doesn't chase her into the crowd to administer a revenge beating, or begin to lay about him at other protesters.
I've been known to be critical of the police, and certainly will be again. But this, and the Tomlinson video, doesn't show - to me - what it seems to show to everyone else.
There hasn't been any trouble at the Tamil demo, has there? I wonder why...
"There hasn't been any trouble at the Tamil demo, has there? I wonder why..." Probably (as in most demos) because no-one set out deliberately to provoke the police.
I'm not saying the G20 lot aren't scum. They are AND they were deliberately provocative. But the police knew this - it's a traditional part of the scum's tactics. Allowing yourself to be provoked - or excusing those allowing themselves to be provoked - is another small victory for the scum. Moreover, don't the videoed incidents give you any reason for disquiet? Doesn't the spectacle of policemen (who are, after all, supposed to be part of a disciplined organisation and trained to deal with this kind of situation) giving way to provocation worry you in the least?
"Moreover, don't the videoed incidents give you any reason for disquiet? Doesn't the spectacle of policemen (who are, after all, supposed to be part of a disciplined organisation and trained to deal with this kind of situation) giving way to provocation worry you in the least?"Yes, they do. And if disciplinary action is required, after investigation of all the facts, then I'm sure it'll be warranted and carried out.
But not to the extent that I'm prepared to countenance the 'all police are scum!' aspect of it.
Something also prevalent in the coverage of the Hillsborough incident today.
Can you explain, Umbongo, how your references to groups can be justified as 'scum' or how your remarks assist solutions or compromises in police and public conduct?
In my experience, arguments are lost when elements are distorted or plainly untrue.
Umbongo/Julia
I’ve got to stick my oar in a bit. You are both clearly articulate and probably more intelligent than me. Both of your arguments and points have merits and reasoned and thought through but both lack a bit of experience in this field.
Firstly, numbers are removed for a number of reasons. The epaulettes give protesters something to grab hold of and pull officers into crowds with. Officers in public order situations are ordered to be where they are. They are not stopping someone in the street and being a bit “rude”. Displaying numbers can hinder the public complaining about wayward officers because numbers get mixed up especially in times of stress and the wrong number will get quoted in the complaint. PC 384 wasn’t deployed to the demo yet he got a complaint. PC 483 was deployed and has just gotten away with an assault because someone else’s number was quoted (reasonable doubt). In most of these events cameras are everywhere and the officer involved will be identified.
Some people have been complaining about officers being “masked”. That is a flame retardant hood, part of our public order uniform. It is not unknown for people to throw petrol bombs at us or, more recently, squirt petrol at us and try to light it. Nice.
Arrests are surprisingly rare at major public order events. Lots of people are arrested subsequently. That is why police Evidence Gathering Teams are everywhere and police are desperate to record people’s faces. Police will seek to contain the disturbance then deal with offences later. The material collected by the EGT is obviously vital. To arrest one complaint offender for a minor offence can take one officer easily four hours. TO haul a non-compliant (yes even a woman) out of an angry crowd may take six officers and remove them for a similar period of time. Police simply do not have the resources to do this. Police are almost always outnumbered to begin with so can’t afford to loose officers left right and centre.
I have watched the video again and again and cannot fault the Sergeant’s actions. It is not pretty and looks awful on video but in his boots I reckon I would have done the same. My reasoning is as follows. Police are heavily outnumbered by an unfriendly crowd. The worst thing that can happen is to become surrounded by that crowd. A space must be maintained. This woman approaches the officer screaming aggressively and is told in no uncertain terms to “get back”. She doesn’t and gets a slap and again told to get back and again comes forward towards the officer and gets a whack with a baton for her troubles. Again the officer must maintain his space or he will be at the mercy of the crowd. This is a very common thing in conflict situations especially where the antagonist thinks they have an audience. I always tell probationers that if someone is close enough to hit or kick you then they are too close. If they won’t get back then push them back. If they keep coming then up the ante. This situation was no different to thousands of others which happen on every Friday and Saturday night up and down the country. The stakes were higher for the officer and his response was also higher. I believe rightly so.
It does not look nice but I can’t see what else he could have done. She didn’t respond to voice or the minor use of force. She kept coming forward. He HAD TO MAITAIN HIS SPACE. Death or serious injury could have resulted if he didn’t. He had to deal with the threat this woman was presenting.
The fact that she is a woman is relevant and probably planned so that the resultant video would look worse. Many women take advantage of the social convention that a man shouldn’t hit a woman to cause all sorts of disturbances every weekend. Some women love doing this. But in the eyes of the law (if not on YouTube) we are all equal. She behaved like a yob and got treated like a yob.
Anon above gives an interesting and illuminating discourse on the problems.
One suspects deliberate, pre-planned provocation in this case, and that the lady in question got smacked is nothing to get concerned about.
Thank you "Anonymous" (at 13:57). You have been far more enlightening that hours of the BBC or ITN.
Dr Gray - if there is money on Mrs Chakrabarti to be a future power I can assure you it isn't "smart".Stan, I know what you are saying, but think Dr Gray does have a valid point. A word of caution appears in order. Few would have bet any smart money in April 2007 that two years hence there would be a President Barack Obama in the White House.
"I’ve got to stick my oar in a bit."You're very welcome. And it's nice to see some illumination shed on some of the aspects that do raise concerns.
"She behaved like a yob and got treated like a yob."Well put. Equality, ladies! We wanted it. We got it. Good. And bad...
"Few would have bet any smart money in April 2007 that two years hence there would be a President Barack Obama in the White House."How many would bet money on him serving a second term now, though...? ;)
Dr Gray
The main objective of the G20 demonstrations in the City (and the objective of all such demos against G whatevers) was not to persuade those meeting at the G20 meeting to alter their policies. The aims were to disrupt the life of the City; cause as much physical damage as possible and provoke the police to behave like thugs thus discrediting the legitimate power of the wider community - working through the state - to defend itself.
There is a case - not one I agree with - but a case against the G20 structure and the capitalist system. This case can only succeed by force and/or deceit, not by reasoned argument (of which peaceful demonstration is a part). Those organising and taking part in the demonstration are useful idiots, mischief makers or worse: in shorthand - they are "scum".
JuliaM
I did not write nor did I imply nor do I believe that "all" policemen are scum. I believe that very few policemen are "scum". I believe that the vast majority of policemen are no worse - and no better - than they have always been. Unfortunately their leaders have been suborned by the politicians (particularly the current lot in power - who really are scum) and appear happy to lead the police away from the Peelite standards which we were lazy enough to take for granted would always apply in this country.
Anonymous
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. You appear to write with far more knowledge than I do. I take your point that there are basic methods by which those seeking to control a crowd have to act. My ignorance of crowd control is profound but I still think it would have been sensible to try to arrest the provocateuse if possible before giving her a slap (which, I assume, is just what she wanted to provoke).
Now, I'm viewing this incident from a comfortable chair in front of a computer screen. I wasn't there. I have sympathy with the police who were doing a difficult job, on the whole, fairly well. But surely the police must have expected to be provoked. What PC X did looked nasty and maybe he had no realistic alternative but, unfortunately whatever the truth of the matter, it appears to be one up to the scum.
"I did not write nor did I imply nor do I believe that "all" policemen are scum."You didn't, no. My comment wasn't directed at you, but at the usual suspects who've taken this tack up and are off and runnning with it.
Candid, commenting at 'LfaT's blog has pointed me to the front page of the 'Sun', which appears to show her with some kind of red liquid in her hand.
Perhaps he thought she was hurling something inflammable?
Just to be clear: The woman only became a "harridan" after the officer hit her the first time. There's no indication she was doing anything to warrant the first strike at all. The officer suddenly and unilaterally decided the crowd was too far forward and started pushing them back, hitting her in the process.
Only after the first strike, in addition to asking him how he could hit a woman, did she start swearing at him (quite understandably, IMO), in response to which he struck her a second time, this time using his gauntlet. When she continued to complain about his behaviour, he started smashing her leg with his baton.
Frankly, I think he's lucky the woman in question was as polite and demure as she was. If it had been my mother, she'd have gone home wearing the cop's testicles as earrings.
These sheep who support the thuggish police will eat their words when one day they have no rights left. Will they still continue to bleat that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear even when they are in police room 619 being beaten to a pulp for daring to speak the truth.Do these halfwits honestly believe that all these new anti-terror laws are just for the handful of terrorists?
Post a Comment