http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/no...-horses-charge
Just find it ironic after all the criticism - note that I do not condone violence on either side, but was this self defence?
Also denying it happened until this video came out? More blatant lies from the powers that be?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Can't see the issue really, they had plenty of opportunity to get out of the way.
Desktop - i7 930, XMS3 6x2GB DDR3, X58A-UD3R (rev2), 2xHD5870 1GB (CrossFireX), Crucial C300 64GB , 2x2TB WD Caviar Green, Corsair 650TX
Notebook - MacBook Pro 13" i5 Early 2011
My flickr
Oh nooos, she has lost her hat, maybe she should play TF2 more!
Sadly the fact of the matter is we won't give our police proper equipment and can't make up our mind about how we want to deal with protests like this. If we give them horse, sticks and shields then that's what they'll use and if someone doesn't get out of the way when their supposed to that's what they'll be hit with. I'm sure that charge was a response to something off camera probably some idiots throwing things at police rather than protesting peacefully like the majority, but if the majority are happy to ignore that behaviour and try to stop the police dealing with it, (running toward the horses shouting "****ing stop"), then I've no sympathy.
A point from an actual copper;
Originally Posted by Inspector Gadget
They didn't deny it until that video came out - they denied it before, and after the video came out. And from that video, I'd say .... quite rightly.
Nothing I can see on that video shows police charging the crowd. It shows a police line parting, and horses cantering forward ... across what might well be a gap with nobody in it for all we can see from that video. Then it shows police on horseback moving slowly around.
What it does not show, as far as I'm concerned, is a police charge.
This show all the classic signs of politically inspired anti-police cobblers.
Maybe, just maybe, more footage will come to light that does show a charge, and I certainly wouldn't be one to pretend the police can do no wrong (especially after the disgraceful antics of some officers at the G20 protests) or always get it right, but this just appears to be hype.
Love this quote
Naomi Bain, a member of support staff at Birkbeck University, was at Whitehall on Wednesday to protest against the government cuts. She said: "We were right at the front of the crowd. I've been in a lot of protests before, so we weren't particularly scared of police shouting at us and telling us to move. We were standing our ground – until the horse charge.
If one is going to go to a 'Peaceful' Protest, after the last one there was violence. Chances are that the next one would be violent too.
As for the girl who lost her hat, should stfu. She was just moaning for the sake of having a agenda against the police.
I understand obviously students being unhappy with the new, said plans for fees, and quite rightly, allowed to protest. But if you attend a protest, there's always the risk that it going balls up. I think in some countries, the police have the powers to rag-doll protesters about.
The police stole her wallet. She had done nothing wrong and the police took her personal property from her and refused to give it back. Are you seriously saying that if someone stole your money, credit cards etc you'd just 'stfu' about it?
As for the charge - I don't see why it was necessary. Are we not allowed to protest in this country anymore?
~'Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence--those are the three pillars of Western prosperity'~ Aldous Huxley
So she says... I'm not saying she is lying, but she ain't exactly going to get it sorted there and then is she? Theres going to be plenty of CCTV activity there, so she will have to report it to the Police Station/HQ. And if someone stole my wallet, and knew about it, I'd either give chase or phone 999.
As for the charge? You don't get a clear view, so there may/may not of been a clear area for them to charge into.
As for me I'm in a neutral stance, I agree with the protesting but the police have to apply the law where appropiate and show presence to prevent the protest going over the top.
The police are not all that bad as people make them out to be.
Oh, please.
By her own account, and that's all we have, there was some sort of scuffle, and an officer tried to grab her hand, in which it turned out she (by her account) had her wallet. That seems like a strange thing to be holding in the middle of a protest kerfluffle, but ... whatever?
But she then said she didn't know what he did with it, probably threw it down.
If she, or you, thinks that's theft, look up what the offence actually is. Theft requires various elements, one of which is intent to permanently deprive, and another is acting dishonestly.
What we have here is a situation of utter confusion where police are acting to preserve the peace, and that officer was part of that effort. Even assuming, as she claims, he did grab her wallet, :-
- did he do that deliberately, or was he, as she said, trying to grab her hand?
- if he then threw it down, did he even know what he was holding?
- was there intent to deprive her, or was the intent to free up his hand to do his job?
- where in hell is there any evidence of dishonesty in all that?
If, at some point, he's caught trying to use her credit cards, then there's evidence of the elements necessary for theft. If, on the other hand, he retained the wallet and turned it in later on, she'll subsequently get it back, and it'll be clear there was no intent to deprive. Or if her assumption that he threw it to the ground was correct, then he was just doing his job, and she's an utter idiot for standing, by her own admission, at the front of a crown in the middle of a 'lively protest', confronting police in a confusing situation, and waving her wallet around.
As for the "charge", what charge? We saw a few days ago what happened when a handful of police were on duty to monitor what was supposed to be a peaceful student protest. It turned intro civil disobedience and riot, at least by a small number. If the police had adopted a low profile attitude to another student protest, and something like that happened again, a lot of people would be moaning at the police for not doing their job.
The police have a duty to protect the public, and property. And yes, people have a right to protest, peacefully and within the law. But, there are situations where police have a legal right to tell you to disperse, be it a riot or a bunch of kids on a street corner, and be merely exercising their legal authority, within the role of doing their duty, when they do. What we don't do, in this country, is to give the police the tools they would have in a lot of other countries, like rubber bullets or water cannon. Instead, the vast majority of police do a very hard job in situations like this, and when even kettling becomes a dubious tool, what are they supposed to do ..... ask people politely, offer them a mice cup of tea and then threaten them with a vicious tickling with a feather duster is they refuse to disperse?
The main purpose of the use of police horses is simply intimidation. Anyone with a brain cell is going to get out of the way of an animal the size and weight of a horse, let alone several of them, let alone those with mounted police on them. Using the sheer intimidating size and power of a horse to break up and disrupt large groups of people in situations where there is the potential for serious trouble and violence, and where I'd bet the order to disperse had been repeatedly given and ignored, is a relatively non-violent way of the police exerting authority over the situation, as they are required to do, and certainly better than water cannon, let alone tear gas or rubber bullets.
Yes, people have a right to protest, but they don't have a right to riot, and we've seen, many times, from experience, that the former can rapidly turn into the latter. It may well be that the intention of the vast majority is simply to protest not riot, but there is a small element where the intent is clearly "civil disobedience", and the police have to deal with what happens, and what they foresee could be developing, in a situation which can easily be a powder-keg of confusion, even if that isn't the intent of the majority of protesters.
If you go on this type of protest, you need to be aware that it can get out of control, just like part of it did last week, and the police have every right to be there to deal with it, and people have a habit of ignoring instructions the police have every legal authority to be giving. By all means protest, but be aware that if you do, you might end up caught up in something you didn't intend. So don't stand at the front of a line, in that turmoil, confronting the police, and waving your wallet about. It's hardly rocket science.
Oh, and when thinking about all this, consider the role of the police. It'll be something like "you 500 blokes, put your clobber on and go out, stand in front of those 10,000 angry people and control the situation".
Not a small ask, is it?
Police have to use some tactics, and if not rubber bullets and tear gas, if not horses or kettling, them what? Because we do expect them to control the situation, and if it was us getting assaulted, getting our homes or businesses raided and trashed, or our cars overturned and burned, we'd sure as hell expect the police to be standing there stopping it.
We ought to spend a bit more time thanking our lucky stars that situations rarely do turn that ugly, certainly in recent years, largely due to preventative actions by police, and a bit less accusing the police of theft because of a trivial and in all likelihood, entirely accidental incident in the midst of a stand-off.
Where was the protest getting out of hand there?
And as for your point about the police not being as bad as we make them out to be - tell that to the family of Iain Tomlinson etc, etc etc. Obviously most police officers are honest, hard working decent people but there are plenty of examples of institutionalised violence and racism throughout the history of the UK police forces.
Yes, her account is all we have. It's all the evidence that have about that particular situation. I'm more inclined to believe what we know about the situation, rather than some speculation about what might have happened by some people who weren't even present, ie, you.
Listen to the mood of the crowd before the horses go in. Then listen to the crowd's response after. That doesn't constitute preserving the peace.
If she, or you, thinks that's theft, look up what the offence actually is. Theft requires various elements, one of which is intent to permanently deprive, and another is acting dishonestly.
What we have here is a situation of utter confusion where police are acting to preserve the peace, and that officer was part of that effort. Even assuming, as she claims, he did grab her wallet, :-
- did he do that deliberately, or was he, as she said, trying to grab her hand?
- if he then threw it down, did he even know what he was holding?
- was there intent to deprive her, or was the intent to free up his hand to do his job?
- where in hell is there any evidence of dishonesty in all that?
If, at some point, he's caught trying to use her credit cards, then there's evidence of the elements necessary for theft. If, on the other hand, he retained the wallet and turned it in later on, she'll subsequently get it back, and it'll be clear there was no intent to deprive. Or if her assumption that he threw it to the ground was correct, then he was just doing his job, and she's an utter idiot for standing, by her own admission, at the front of a crown in the middle of a 'lively protest', confronting police in a confusing situation, and waving her wallet around.
It's all very well and good that I and she might not be semantically correct in labelling it theft - but I was defending the woman because posters here seems to think that she wasn't right to be annoyed about the situation. I wonder if everyone here would be as calm and rational about it if they were the ones who had been deprived of their property.
It was a very small number out of a huge crowd of protesters that started the 'riot'. You can't define and predict the actions of all protesters by the actions of a few.As for the "charge", what charge? We saw a few days ago what happened when a handful of police were on duty to monitor what was supposed to be a peaceful student protest. It turned intro civil disobedience and riot, at least by a small number. If the police had adopted a low profile attitude to another student protest, and something like that happened again, a lot of people would be moaning at the police for not doing their job.
If you go on this type of protest, you need to be aware that it can get out of control, just like part of it did last week, and the police have every right to be there to deal with it, and people have a habit of ignoring instructions the police have every legal authority to be giving. By all means protest, but be aware that if you do, you might end up caught up in something you didn't intend. So don't stand at the front of a line, in that turmoil, confronting the police, and waving your wallet about. It's hardly rocket science.
She was being pushed forwards by the crowd. If you've ever been in a crowd that like that (I'm sure you have) then you'll know it's difficult to stand still when there's a large body of people pushing you forwards.
Oh, and just because she had her wallet in her hands, that doesn't mean she was 'waving it about'. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for her to have had it out.
~'Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence--those are the three pillars of Western prosperity'~ Aldous Huxley
This. The police were just doing their jobs/following orders. They have to exercise some discretion in order to maintain control e.g crowd dispersion/movement. They do a lot more for the world/economy/taxpayer than most of these hippy students.
The serious/smart students who will end up paying a lot more to the taxman wouldn't be seen at this protest because they know a measly £30k investment shouldn't be a concern if it will make a difference of £100ks to lifetime income. University should not be a free/cheap ride. (I did pay fees having recently completed uni. Although they were a lot less, I would have been happy to pay the full amount - I already earn double what I would have expected had I not gone to uni).
If you don't want to get roughed up by the police don't go to the front line of a aggressive protest and start getting in the poor policemen's faces. Simple.
Last edited by SiM; 27-11-2010 at 03:22 PM.
Yeah, it's not like students with degree ever contribute to society!
Did you watch the same video as I did? The only aggression was coming from the police.
The serious/smart students who will end up paying a lot more to the taxman wouldn't be seen at this protest because they know a measly £30k investment shouldn't be a concern if it will make a difference of £100ks to lifetime income. University should not be a free/cheap ride. (I did pay fees having recently completed uni. Although they were a lot less, I would have been happy to pay the full amount - I already earn double what I would have expected had I not gone to uni).
If you don't want to get roughed up by the police don't go to the front line of a aggressive protest and start getting in the poor policemen's faces. Simple.
~'Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence--those are the three pillars of Western prosperity'~ Aldous Huxley
Most don't until they graduate and get jobs... But I didn't say that anyway.
I saw/heard plenty of verbal aggression/swearing from the protesters. The police were just doing their job.
Most of the swearing after the police charged.
It's funny how those defending the actions of the police don't take into account the pregnant woman that was forced against a wall by a female officer on a horse or the young lad that was clearly injured, then when protesters asked for help for injured they were pushed back said police with seeminly no medical treatment/ aid being given.
People say there was no charge, but you can clearly see people running out of the path of the horses, the police used an unnecessary amount of force when using the horses, the protesters weren't rioting or causing any trouble, yeah they were shouting or whatever but they weren't attack people or property in this instance.
It didn't fall off, it merely became insufficient at it's purpose and got a bit droopy...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
