I1L2T3 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Oh believe me I have nothing to get over, I know fully well it will never happen in this country, but if it ever did, I would have no problem with it at all. What would be your response to acts of mindless violence like smashing up central London all in the name of protest, oh yeah just stand by and let them do it. No doubt afterwards give them a hug and say please stop been a naughty boy. If the police could prevent it they should. If trying to prevent it was too risky they should stand back. Do you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbirdone Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 If the police could prevent it they should. If trying to prevent it was too risky they should stand back. Do you disagree? No I don't disagree at all with that, but if say the police saw a guy just about to throw a petrol bomb through a shop window and the quickest and safest way for the police to prevent said petrol bomb going through shop window was to pop off a baton round, then I see no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 No I don't disagree at all with that, but if say the police saw a guy just about to throw a petrol bomb through a shop window and the quickest and safest way for the police to prevent said petrol bomb going through shop window was to pop off a baton round, then I see no problem with that. It would depend on the context. If there was no other way of bringing a disturbance under control then as a last resort it's an option, but more of an option if life is threatened. My standing back while people smash things up argument relates to what happened at Tory HQ in the student protests last year. Dozens of police stood by that day, watched idiots smash the place up. The police filmed it themselves on the ground and from the air, and also invited TV crews in. Then they used all the footage of the people incriminating themselves. I think people have too short memories sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbirdone Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It would depend on the context. If there was no other way of bringing a disturbance under control then as a last resort it's an option, but more of an option if life is threatened. My standing back while people smash things up argument relates to what happened at Tory HQ in the student protests last year. Dozens of police stood by that day, watched idiots smash the place up. The police filmed it themselves on the ground and from the air, and also invited TV crews in. Then they used all the footage of the people incriminating themselves. I think people have too short memories sometimes. Of course even I would prefer the police to use other options rather than just go in all guns blazing with baton rounds and I would only prefer them been used as a last resort or if the use of them put an instant stop to a situation happening like the petrol bomb through a shop window. Thinking back on the students smashing up the Tory HQ, I don't think baton rounds would have made much difference or though maybe they would have dispersed the crowd a little who knows. Water cannons maybe have been a better option, But when confronted with a situation like that i think it would have been unsafe for the police to try and break that situation up and then that's when standing back and filming it is most likely the sensible thing to do. If it's unsafe for the police then I have no problem at all with them standing back. But standing back and doing nothing apart from filming in the hope that the people taking part can be dealt with at a later time shouldn't be the preffered option in my opinion. If they are able to prevent something from happening then they should step in and do so. And as I said if firing off a baton round prevents a situation from happening I'd like the police to be able to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 But standing back and doing nothing apart from filming in the hope that the people taking part can be dealt with at a later time shouldn't be the preffered option in my opinion. The police sometimes do this kind of thing. At football matches for example. I know someone who were hauled in weeks after committing offences at a football match - the police just stood back and filmed the events, worked out who was who and then got them later. It's a valid tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbirdone Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 The police sometimes do this kind of thing. At football matches for example. I know someone who were hauled in weeks after committing offences at a football match - the police just stood back and filmed the events, worked out who was who and then got them later. It's a valid tactic. No I agree it's a totally valid tactic but it shouldn't be the only tactic they use. It should be one of many available to them but if filming is deemed the best option for them to use in that situation then that should be what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 duplicate post....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I wonder how many students passed up the opportunity to protest at the disgusting things which are going on, because of the obvious underlying intimidation in the repeated police statements about 'robust measures' and 'baton rounds' plus the chilling realisation that a significant proportion of the population would either support, or at best be indifferent to any brutality meted out against them? There were only about two or three thousand people at that demo. Firstly the police 'spokespersons' go all out to sell the idea that a valid political demonstration against the policies of our inequality friendly, can do (for the wealthy) government is comparable to the thuggish burning and looting which took place in London and other cities in the summer. The popular press and TV happily collude in this BS because any experienced journalist knows that when the truth is mundane, a load of hype will generate a lot more public interest. The police are happy to provide them with exactly the kind of tripe they want. It's a kind of sinister symbiosis. They know they can always rely on the semi-comatose sections of society to obligingly be spoon fed any story which fits into the simple minded narrative of good guys (in this case the forces of law and order) and bad guys (dirty student trouble makers). So the idea that plastic bullets would be used on very young people who are hardly out of school - for protesting about their futures contiuning to be made a lot more difficult for the benefit of those at the top echelons of society (including the vast majority of those in government) who are getting wealthier at an unprecedented rate - was not only readily accepted by a large number of people, but actually encouraged by quite a few as well. Baaaa! Baaaaa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I wonder how many students passed up the opportunity to protest at the disgusting things which are going on, because of the obvious underlying intimidation in the repeated police statements about 'robust measures' and 'baton rounds' plus the chilling realisation that a significant proportion of the population would either support, or at best be indifferent to any brutality meted out against them? There were only about two or three thousand people at that demo. Firstly the police 'spokespersons' go all out to sell the idea that a valid political demonstration against the policies of our inequality friendly, can do (for the wealthy) government is comparable to the thuggish burning and looting which took place in London and other cities in the summer. The popular press and TV happily collude in this BS because any experienced journalist knows that when the truth is mundane, a load of hype will generate a lot more public interest. The police are happy to provide them with exactly the kind of tripe they want. It's a kind of sinister symbiosis. They know they can always rely on the semi-comatose sections of society to obligingly be spoon fed any story which fits into the simple minded narrative of good guys (in this case the forces of law and order) and bad guys (dirty student trouble makers). So the idea that plastic bullets would be used on very young people who are hardly out of school - for protesting about their futures contiuning to be made a lot more difficult for the benefit of those at the top echelons of society (including the vast majority of those in government) who are getting wealthier at an unprecedented rate - was not only readily accepted by a large number of people, but actually encouraged by quite a few as well. Baaaa! Baaaaa! I like the cut of ya jib lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It would depend on the context. If there was no other way of bringing a disturbance under control then as a last resort it's an option, but more of an option if life is threatened. My standing back while people smash things up argument relates to what happened at Tory HQ in the student protests last year. Dozens of police stood by that day, watched idiots smash the place up. The police filmed it themselves on the ground and from the air, and also invited TV crews in. Then they used all the footage of the people incriminating themselves. I think people have too short memories sometimes. The problem is that the people incriminating themselves are now covering their faces as witnessed during the last riots, yes there are some people stupid enough not to cover their face whilst committing crimes but I would bet the ring leader that are at every protest cover their face so never get court. If it was illegal to cover your face during public protests filming them would prevent a lot of crime. The protesters would need to know that the consequence of covering their face was arrest. I wait for all the comments about infringing people’s rights to cover their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.