Protesters camped at St Pauls

[esme]

Mod Note

 

Posts deleted for not being family friendly and insulting other users.

 

Keep it civil please, attack the argument and not the person making it.

[I1L2T3]

Neither were swampy and his unwashed mates at Dale Farm until eviction day ,then they showed their true colours and resorted to violence aimed at the police. Its what these people do .

 

All people who protest will naturally end up fighting the police?

[Adrians Lad]

All people who protest will naturally end up fighting the police?

 

The "professional" protesters, yes.

 

By Professional , i mean the anarchists that turn up and attatch themselves to any and every protest taking place . These people has no personal interest in the cause they attatch themselves too , they are just anti-establishmet ,and just use protests as a chance to cause as much disruption as possible.

 

We have just had the Dale Farm episode. The tree huggers who turned up there had no affiliation with the travellers , they just saw it as another chance of a run in with the establishment . They claim to be peaceful protesters , but dont hesitate to turn violent as soon as anyone in authority turns up. These people cover their faces ,and hide their identity whilst commiting violent acts. Ask yourself why they cover their faces . ? It isnt because they are cold is it .?

 

These people dont help any cause they attach themselves too, they have no interest in any cause they attatch themselves too , they just use it as another chance attack athority.

 

So ,yes ,the "Professional" protesters get everything they deserve when they attack police and baliffs who are just doing their jobs.

 

Do you expect the police to merely stand there and when being attacked with bricks and bottles ?

[I1L2T3]

Do you expect the police to merely stand there and when being attacked with bricks and bottles ?

 

I don't expect this protest to end violently. As much as the police and bankers want to use force doing so would be a complete disaster.

 

Stop trying to turn the protest into something that aligns with your own prejudices and fantasies.

[green]

Adrians Lad - you joined this board in Oct 11. Why now may i ask? Why are you specifically trolling these topics?

 

Your angst & violence towards people whom have decided to no longer sit at home and whinge behind keyboards, about the injustices and inequalities in society and towards its fellow citizens, who have taken the argument to the steps of the Authorities whom continually downtrod on them, is quite simply unfathomable.

 

You honestly need I pity you.

[Adrians Lad]

Adrians Lad - you joined this board in Oct 11. Why now may i ask? Why are you specifically trolling these topics?

 

Your angst & violence towards people whom have decided to no longer sit at home and whinge behind keyboards, about the injustices and inequalities in society and towards its fellow citizens, who have taken the argument to the steps of the Authorities whom continually downtrod on them, is quite simply unfathomable.

 

You honestly need I pity you.

 

What i have an issue with is constant protests ,which usually end in violence ,and costing us taxpayers vast amounts of money to clear the illegal protest sites.

 

Are you denying there are "Professional " anarchist protesters who attatch themselves to any old worthless crusade just to have a run in with authority .?

[Adrians Lad]

As much as the police and bankers want to use force doing so would be a complete disaster.

 

 

Do you have proof of that ?

 

I ask again , do you expect police to just stand there whilst violent anarchists are hurling bricks at them . ? ( IE, the recent violence aimed at police at DALE FARM)

[green]

What i have an issue with is constant protests ,which usually end in violence ,and costing us taxpayers vast amounts of money to clear the illegal protest sites.

 

Are you denying there are "Professional " anarchist protesters who attatch themselves to any old worthless crusade just to have a run in with authority .?

 

These "professional" activists worry me the most....

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24000552-activists-call-for-judge-to-probe-mets-use-of-undercover-police-in-mockery-of-justice.do

 

Activists call for judge to probe Met's use of undercover police in 'mockery of justice'

Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor

20 Oct 2011

 

Profile: undercover officer Jim Boyling

 

 

The Met was today facing calls for a judge-led investigation of its undercover policing after a major new row broke out about covert operations conducted by the force.

 

The demands were prompted by the revelation that Met officer Jim Boyling gave evidence under a false name during the trial of green activists in a "jaw-dropping" abuse of court rules.

 

Another Met officer claimed that the practice was widespread as lawyers warned that a flood of appeals could be launched as a result.

 

Today, as the Met and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary launched investigations, defence lawyer Mike Schwarz said a full independent probe was needed. He said: "I have no confidence in either the Met or HMIC to get to the bottom of this. What we need is a judge-led inquiry and for the Met to throw open its books to see how widespread this was."

 

The allegations forced the postponement of the publication of a review of the future of undercover policing, which was scheduled for today. The undercover officer gave evidence under a false name to secure the conviction of green activists without telling the judge or defence lawyers.

 

Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, predicted a mass of appeals and accused the police of showing a "cavalier attitude" towards the British justice system.

 

"It is highly disreputable to send someone into court to lie about who they are and what they were," he said. "It is making a mockery of the courts, the judge and the entire justice system.

 

"It is pretty jaw-dropping stuff and shows that the police were taking a cavalier attitude towards the courts. I would have thought that anyone who has been convicted because of an undercover police operation will be considering an appeal."

 

The row follows claims that Mr Boyling, a specialist operations detective constable with the Met Police, maintained the alias Jim Sutton throughout the trial of activists from the pro-cycling campaign group Reclaim the Streets in 1997.

 

The protesters were unaware of his background and unable to question his motivations and actions in court.

 

Mr Boyling, who was also prosecuted under his false identity, sat in on meetings with Mr Schwarz, the activists' defence lawyer, giving him access to confidential information that police should not have been able to obtain.

 

Mr Schwarz, from the London law firm Bindmans, said the revelation raised concerns about the "confidentiality" of discussions between the officer's co-defendants and their legal representatives.

 

"This case raises the most fundamental constitutional issues about the limits of acceptable policing, the sanctity of lawyer-client confidentiality, and the integrity of the criminal justice system," he told the Guardian. "At first sight, it seems that the police have wildly overstepped all recognised boundaries."

 

Activist John Jordan, who was convicted of assaulting a police officer at the Reclaim the Streets protest at London Underground's headquarters in 1996 and given a conditional discharge, said he was planning to appeal following the new disclosures.

 

"It was totally outrageous what happened. I'm a lecturer, I have a job where I'm working with students and to have assault of a police officer on your record was pretty difficult," he said.

 

Another Met officer, Peter Black, who worked undercover with Mr Boyling infiltrating political protest movements, also claimed today that other prosecutions had been brought in which officers had appeared in court under false names. He said that it was "part of their cover" to be prosecuted.

 

It was unclear whether Mr Boyling's actions might have been unlawful amid suggestions that possible offences of perjury, contempt of court or even perverting the course of justice could have been committed. Officials were also unable to say today who authorised the practice at the Met, which at the time was led by Sir Paul Condon, or how widespread it was.

 

Dee Doocey, a Liberal Democrat member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said the lack of information meant "very serious questions" needed to be answered by Scotland Yard. She said: "It is almost beyond belief that an undercover Met police officer went through the criminal justice system pretending to be someone else. This makes a mockery of the judicial system which works on truth and justice. If this was authorised it is a monumental misjudgement by the Met."

 

Neither the Met, nor the Crown Prosecution Service, which is responsible for bringing charges, were able to say how many cases might be affected.

 

But spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police Service acknowledges that these are serious matters and is continuing to review the situation, and will take account of any additional information that becomes available.

 

"We are confident that the current legislative and regulatory framework governing the deployment of undercover officers ensures that all such deployments conducted now are lawful and appropriately managed."

 

The latest allegations also led to the postponement of an investigation to assess what went wrong after the case against six protesters accused of planning to invade the second-largest power station in the UK collapsed in January. They claimed an undercover officer offered to give evidence on their behalf. Mark Kennedy, who spent seven years posing as long-haired drop-out climber Mark "Flash" Stone, also had sexual relationships with at least two women during the operation.

 

He has since said he now fears for his life, describing the world of undercover policing as "grey and murky", adding: "There is some bad stuff going on. Really bad stuff."

 

 

Questions and Answers

What is today's new row over undercover policing about?

 

The allegation that Met detective Jim Boyling appeared in court using a false name without disclosing to the defence that he was using an alias or was an undercover police officer.

 

Critics say that undermined the defendants' right to a fair trial. Boyling was also prosecuted, and could thus sit in on lawyers' meetings with fellow defendants and hear confidential discussions which he could report back to his bosses.

 

So was this standard practice at the Met and who approved it?

 

These questions will be the focus of investigations launched today by Scotland Yard and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary - another Met undercover officer has claimed his colleagues regularly appeared in court using aliases. If the practice was approved by senior ranks at Scotland Yard, whose commissioner at the time was Sir Paul Condon, it will raise serious questions about the way the force was run.

 

Was the law broken by police?

 

This is unclear. Boyling might have committed perjury if he gave false facts that were relevant to the case, although it is unclear whether using an alias would count. An offence of contempt of court is also possible.

 

What action will be taken?

 

The inspectorate was already proposing stricter regulation of undercover officers after the row over Met officer Mark Kennedy's activities in a seven-year operation against environmental protesters in Nottinghamshire

[green]

Do you have proof of that ?

 

I ask again , do you expect police to just stand there whilst violent anarchists are hurling bricks at them . ? ( IE, the recent violence aimed at police at DALE FARM)

 

Taken from #OccupyOakland website :-

 

Oakland Spends Millions in Attack on Occupy Protesters, Closes 5 Schools Next Day

October 26, 2011

 

On Tuesday evening at 5pm Occupy Oakland gathered at the foot of the Oakland Library on 14th Avenue before setting off on a march past the jail and onward to Frank Ogawa Plaza. The peaceful gathering swelled as it marched through downtown, growing upwards of 1,000 people strong. Along their route were police from 17 jurisdictions in California, decked out in riot gear and weaponry.

 

Just before 8pm the police began throwing concussion grenades and tear gas directly into the crowd, injuring several nonviolent protesters. Weapons were aimed and fired at people as they attempted to help the injured and bring them to safety. The crowd reconvened a block away and continued to peacefully occupy the streets outside the plaza. For several hours this scenario was repeated as citizens tried to gain entrance to the plaza while the police held their line using “non-lethal” rifles, tear gas, and barricades.

 

The city has spent several million dollars in this campaign to shut down free speech in Oakland. Meanwhile today the Oakland Unified School District will vote on closing down 5 schools: Lakeview, Lazear, Marshall, Maxwell Park and Santa Fe. They will meet at 5pm at Oakland Technical High, where they will be met with protestors from Occupy Oakland and other groups demanding a more sane and just allocation of the city’s resources.

 

And a youtube video of the polices unprovoked actions :-

 

 

Since this incident, which left a marine (one of the occupiers) in a critical condition in hospital, the police chief has apologised and resigned.

 

The mayor has apologised too.

[Adrians Lad]

You really do have a problem with authority dont you.