|
Post by nicko on Nov 28, 2010 17:08:34 GMT 1
It seems to me we have the " democratic right to protest" but only on the Governments and the laws terms. That is certainly nothing new Nick, Maya Evans proves that point. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4527274.stmAs to what and is what not acceptable I believe that should be set in law, the Police simply cannot win IMO. Yes I firmly believe we all have the right to protest but we must do so within boundaries - in the first instance I would say moral boundaries but the problem is morals differ. Hence we get " a small group" who seem intent on violent disorder at a high proportion of protests. Thus the protest loses it's desired impact and the boundaries implied become legal. Back to the Police, on one hand should they take no or little action as happened on the first student protest there then resulted damage to property and near death. Should they take effective action then those "peaceful - law abiding" protesters get caught in the web. Again the protest is ruined. It can be done, the march against the War (Iraq) was attended by well over 1 million ( and then duly ignored). The march in Dublin yesterday again proved people can demonstrate without violent elements taking over. So Mr Policeman your damned if you do and damned if you don't. It was the Maya Evans arrest that got me interested in how we go about protesting in the country and how the law and police deal with it. The police should take appropriate action when faced with different situations. If it's violent then use the amount of force required (as you know Stu that mantra has served the Armed Forces well enough over the years). I don't think that using horses at the canter to dispersing a large crowd because it's time to "move along" (even though it appears it wasn't) is appropriate. Anyway bringing the thread back on topic and apologies for taking it off topic. I was taking a dump earlier and thumbing through the Radio Times I noticed that this weeks episode is about the Tactical Aid Unit in Bolton who have to deal with the EDL and UAF in one day one less. Reading the blurb about the program I read this and I quote, 'One officer candidly admits that although the ideal outcome would be for the day to pass off peacefully, "I'd rather have a bit of sport."One for Sky + I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Nov 28, 2010 17:59:06 GMT 1
That is certainly nothing new Nick, Maya Evans proves that point. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4527274.stmAs to what and is what not acceptable I believe that should be set in law, the Police simply cannot win IMO. Yes I firmly believe we all have the right to protest but we must do so within boundaries - in the first instance I would say moral boundaries but the problem is morals differ. Hence we get " a small group" who seem intent on violent disorder at a high proportion of protests. Thus the protest loses it's desired impact and the boundaries implied become legal. Back to the Police, on one hand should they take no or little action as happened on the first student protest there then resulted damage to property and near death. Should they take effective action then those "peaceful - law abiding" protesters get caught in the web. Again the protest is ruined. It can be done, the march against the War (Iraq) was attended by well over 1 million ( and then duly ignored). The march in Dublin yesterday again proved people can demonstrate without violent elements taking over. So Mr Policeman your damned if you do and damned if you don't. I was taking a dump earlier and thumbing through the Radio Times I noticed that this weeks episode is about the Tactical Aid Unit in Bolton who have to deal with the EDL and UAF in one day one less. Reading the blurb about the program I read this and I quote, 'One officer candidly admits that although the ideal outcome would be for the day to pass off peacefully, "I'd rather have a bit of sport."One for Sky + I reckon. Nicko, comments like that clearly do not help the image of the Polic as a whole, but you're reading in isolation. I'd ask you to watch the show, then comment again. You'll probably not change your point of view, but you have to consider that the TAU will be a group of officers with specialist skill sets based around crowd control and dealing with violent disorder. Certainly the protagonists from this bunch of demonstartors will not be shy and reserved in the way they conduct themselves. You need the type of mindset to deal with this. They will generally be facing not very nice people, in not very nice situations for the majority of their career on such units. Those who served in NI tackling crowd control will know that dealing with any mass disorder is a sobering thought, more so if bricks, bottles etc are being thrown. I'm not suggesting this goes on all the time, but it does happen, and these officers are exposed to it more often due to the nature of their role. My point earlier re the war band of human rights activists and closet reporters; the police officers deployed to such demonstrations have an increadibly difficult job to do, and are continually subjected to verbal and physical provocation from all sides. Often certain protestors will do something unlawful to gain a reaction which will then be seized upon in isolation and complaints and investigations fly. The chief aim of this is soley to demoralise and discredit officers. To me, this is distasteful and morally wrong. Creating a situation purely to gain a negative reaction. again we come to the underlying point that the nature of 'protesting' has changed from being people Vs Politicians; to People Vs the Police. Police officers are paid to uphold the law, and when they go about doing this people are suprised when they get hurt or arrested. As Windy said, no one wins. With regard to flexibility, as you point out in an ideal world the police would have the flexibility to deal with rapidly changing events. Unfortunately they do not. Only a small percentage of officers are 'riot' trained, the vast majority have none of the specialist training or equipment. There is a finite number of resources also. Consider most of the smaller forces in the country have less than 2000 officers; then deduct the number who are not uniform front line; and deduct the number who can not work due to leave or sickness; deduct the number who have to be ringfenced to deal with the other 'jobs' coming in outside of the protests...suddenly the number of officers available to deal with even a small protest becomes difficult to find. There are ways to mitigate this, which Chiefs look at with resource sharing, but it really is not a simple as you think.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 28, 2010 18:26:34 GMT 1
I was taking a dump earlier and thumbing through the Radio Times How very "Forces" of you Oik !
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Nov 29, 2010 20:06:00 GMT 1
El Pres, I'm only quoting what's in the RT, I'm not commenting on it. As I said I'm recording it.
I'm aware of what the TAU's do. I have two very good mates in the police, my wife is an ex West Mids special and front desk officer and my brother is a CSO. They tell me about the sort of officer who may be attracted to the TAU.
I am well aware that things aren't as simple as they seem; please don't patronise me.
Basically I don't believe using horses to move the crowd on the other day was necessary, you do. Fair enough.
Windy. You can take the bloke out of the Forces.....etc, etc.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsburyshrew on Nov 29, 2010 20:13:57 GMT 1
Can we please stop referring to the Police as the 'force' and instead use the more politically correct term of 'service' because Simon says.
For any of you not familiar with Simon says, it's Mr Pegg in Hot Fuzz.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Nov 29, 2010 20:48:07 GMT 1
Nicko, sorry mate I didn't mean to come across patronising - I was just trying to wrap up that the 'flexibility' issue is easier said than done. I don't want to bang on about this much more, but I've yet to read any other reasonable suggestions here as to how the police should 'crowd control' better. Remember, with these demonstrations, there can only be so much give and take - in other words the rest of the public not protesting have a right to go about their daily lives also. So if a protest is told to wrap up at a certain time, and it doesn't, there is a continuing impact on others over and above that which has already occured during the 'lawful' period.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 1, 2010 0:23:41 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 2, 2010 23:39:44 GMT 1
|
|