Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2010 16:50:41 GMT 1
182 arrests reported so far and is expected to rise significantly and it was only a handfull causing trouble forgive the appauling maths, but of 10.000 protestors, doesnt that work out at 1.82% troublemakers? i think a handfull is a pretty reasonable estimation.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 14, 2010 17:01:18 GMT 1
Also to prove to the other people who questioned my wheelchair incident on the other thread, there has been footage that has come out to show I wasn't lieing. Jog my memory mate, but I think you said something about being thrown on the ground and beaten. I've briefly seen the footage and looks to me like the chap is being moved, yes by force, but I think because he is obstructing. I don't have the facts, just surmising. Not trying to be controversial, but having a disability should not prevent police officers from dealing with an individual in such circumstances. Clearly any use of force (even taking hold of someones arm) needs to be justified. I don't think the chap in question has made any complaint yet either? Ok so if he was causing an obstruction why wasn't he just wheeled away? He says himself he can't control his wheelchair. Interesting to note one of the police officers being bragged away by a colleague at the end. As for the BBC, tune into ITV tonight at 10.35pm to watch this. www.johnpilger.com/
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 0:35:38 GMT 1
Jog my memory mate, but I think you said something about being thrown on the ground and beaten. I've briefly seen the footage and looks to me like the chap is being moved, yes by force, but I think because he is obstructing. I don't have the facts, just surmising. Not trying to be controversial, but having a disability should not prevent police officers from dealing with an individual in such circumstances. Clearly any use of force (even taking hold of someones arm) needs to be justified. I don't think the chap in question has made any complaint yet either? Ok so if he was causing an obstruction why wasn't he just wheeled away? He says himself he can't control his wheelchair. Interesting to note one of the police officers being bragged away by a colleague at the end. As for the BBC, tune into ITV tonight at 10.35pm to watch this. www.johnpilger.com/Interpretation is exactly that. Crowd control situation, seems to me things began to escalate and the officers removed themselves, all in physical contact, keeping eye ball on all directions. If you're all holding onto each other, you're hander to drag away; if you have eyeball all around, you can identify threats quicker. Standard military tactic, as I recall using a number of times as we foot patrolled Al-Ashar district - common sense it should be employed here as it is designed to protect you in such unpredictable situations. Seems to me (interpretation again) that the young follow has a chip on his shoulder using such language as 'The police are the ones who are provoking and inciting the violence' ... "the police perceived me to be more vulnerable so picked on me to provoke violence in the crowd..." ... "an army of police officers armed with weapons..." Then chirping on about how the media are against the protesters too... As for wheeling him away, his brother had control of the chair. Catch 22, if the brother refuses to move, do you go hands on with him and the wheelchair user? Do you stand and have a good old chat about it? Or do you move him directly? Is it so shocking to think that just perhaps him and his brother could well have created this situation specifically to cause the very issues now coming to light that a defenceless wheel chair users has been man handled by police officers .... during a public order situation!? It's not really a concept I'm struggling with.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 15, 2010 1:56:21 GMT 1
Ok so if he was causing an obstruction why wasn't he just wheeled away? He says himself he can't control his wheelchair. Interesting to note one of the police officers being bragged away by a colleague at the end. As for the BBC, tune into ITV tonight at 10.35pm to watch this. www.johnpilger.com/Interpretation is exactly that. Crowd control situation, seems to me things began to escalate and the officers removed themselves, all in physical contact, keeping eye ball on all directions. If you're all holding onto each other, you're hander to drag away; if you have eyeball all around, you can identify threats quicker. Standard military tactic, as I recall using a number of times as we foot patrolled Al-Ashar district - common sense it should be employed here as it is designed to protect you in such unpredictable situations. Seems to me (interpretation again) that the young follow has a chip on his shoulder using such language as 'The police are the ones who are provoking and inciting the violence' ... "the police perceived me to be more vulnerable so picked on me to provoke violence in the crowd..." ... "an army of police officers armed with weapons..." Then chirping on about how the media are against the protesters too... As for wheeling him away, his brother had control of the chair. Catch 22, if the brother refuses to move, do you go hands on with him and the wheelchair user? Do you stand and have a good old chat about it? Or do you move him directly? Is it so shocking to think that just perhaps him and his brother could well have created this situation specifically to cause the very issues now coming to light that a defenceless wheel chair users has been man handled by police officers .... during a public order situation!? It's not really a concept I'm struggling with. I'm not sure that students should be seen in military terms, is it not overstating the threat level? maybe the chap in the chair has used the situation , maybe even created it, but that is likely isnt it? should the police not be anticipating tactics like this? whether they have been tricked into brutaluty or not, it amounts to the same thing. if they policed the notting hill carnival or a edl march in the same way, they would have had a similar reaction.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 15, 2010 2:55:30 GMT 1
You'd hope - having seen the video - that the officers in question would look to handle things differently should the same circumstances occur again.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 15, 2010 12:03:56 GMT 1
The amount of force used was ridiculously disproportionate to the 'threat' posed.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 13:45:22 GMT 1
The amount of force used was ridiculously disproportionate to the 'threat' posed. Easy to say from the comfort of a keyboard. Clearly any 'threat' assessment is subjective, as although there is a training mechanism in place to help officers understand and assess threats, we all interpret differently. We can all judge from the lofty position of hindsight; and it seems some just can't fathom that police officers will actually have to do their job. You may recall my qoute a few weeks back on police use of force 'A constable may use such force as is resonable in the circumstances..." its not just about meeting a 'threat' with a counter use of force. It also refers to using force to achieve a lawful purpose. Tha lawful purpose could well have been moving the lad out of the way to prevent his injury by the horses; crowd surge; to prevent him obstructing other officers in carrying out their duty. My point, you do not know, and neither do I... so its a little short sighted to so categorically judge this incident. My belief is people are upset because he is disabled. If this was an able bodied protester sat on the ground, who was then lifted and dragged away, would anyone be so concerned?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 15, 2010 15:17:27 GMT 1
The amount of force used was ridiculously disproportionate to the 'threat' posed. My belief is people are upset because he is disabled. If this was an able bodied protester sat on the ground, who was then lifted and dragged away, would anyone be so concerned? What an astonishing comment to make. That's the point. Some of the police were so "in control" of themselves that they treated a disabled man like that. He was as much a threat as Ian Tomlinson a couple of years ago who, if you recall, wasn't a protester but happened to be in the same place. He was walking away but was pushed with such force that he later died. Isn't it right to be concerned that the police treated a disabled man in this way, just as it would if he'd been an elderly person or a child or a pregnant woman ...? I don't deny the police have a difficult job sometimes - I just think it's fair to expect them do it a lot better! Is that asking so much?
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 15:37:40 GMT 1
My belief is people are upset because he is disabled. If this was an able bodied protester sat on the ground, who was then lifted and dragged away, would anyone be so concerned? What an astonishing comment to make. That's the point. Some of the police were so "in control" of themselves that they treated a disabled man like that. He was as much a threat as Ian Tomlinson a couple of years ago who, if you recall, wasn't a protester but happened to be in the same place. He was walking away but was pushed with such force that he later died. Isn't it right to be concerned that the police treated a disabled man in this way, just as it would if he'd been an elderly person or a child or a pregnant woman ...? I don't deny the police have a difficult job sometimes - I just think it's fair to expect them do it a lot better! Is that asking so much? I'm not going to reargue the point, as I've already discussed the potential rationalé for their actions. I don't see why it is an astonishing comment to make, given the circumstances. Different circumstances would require a different response. Sadly this is the real world, where ideal solutions are not always possible to achieve. No doubt where things are not often as they seem viewed in hindsight with access to a shaky recording posted on youtube, edited to only show the elements that benefit the agenda of those concerned in promoting division between 'the public' and 'the police'. 20,000 protestors, 2000 police officers; anarchists travelling from all over the world to promote violence; 42 protestors injured and 22 officers injured; untold damage to property and disruption to the lives of those living and working in central London; and we are so grieved by this? Perhaps my life experiences have hardened me somewhat, but I find it difficult to have much truck with the lads claim of police brutality in this given incident.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 17:23:14 GMT 1
Seems appropriate to link this news story here, as I think people seem to forget the risks police officers face even in their day to day activities. I sincerely hope the officer, who's injuries are life threatening, pulls through; seems his community appreciates his efforts in seeing his duty through, given the twitter feeds on this incident. Police Officer and PCSO stabbed in London. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12003691Knives are easy to conceal, but not only that, linking to my previous post, getting seperated from your colleagues and pulled into a crowd is not good news, as PC Blakelock sadly discovered.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 15, 2010 17:29:20 GMT 1
The amount of force used was ridiculously disproportionate to the 'threat' posed. Easy to say from the comfort of a keyboard. Yes, those officers must have been in fear of their lives as that wheelchair trundled menacingly towards them.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 17:37:10 GMT 1
[/img] Yes, those officers must have been in fear of their lives as that wheelchair trundled menacingly towards them.[/quote] Can't say fella, wasn't there....neither were you right?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 15, 2010 17:51:27 GMT 1
[/img].gif[/img] Yes, those officers must have been in fear of their lives as that wheelchair trundled menacingly towards them.[/quote] Can't say fella, wasn't there....neither were you right? [/quote] No, that's right. But if I try putting myself in the position of a policeman, with a baton, shield, helmet and visor, and the support of similarly equipped colleagues, then I think I can imagine how terrifying a disabled man in a wheelchair must have been. Funny, but I don't see hypothetical scenarios and 'potential rationale' being dreamt up in defence of some of the 'thugs' that clashed with police.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 15, 2010 17:52:09 GMT 1
I don't wish to be rude El Pres, but your arguments are ridiculous.
Especially this.
"Standard military tactic, as I recall using a number of times as we foot patrolled Al-Ashar district - common sense it should be employed here as it is designed to protect you in such unpredictable situations."
He is in a disabled, unarmed protester, he's not an insurgent.
You are trying to defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 18:03:19 GMT 1
Can't say fella, wasn't there....neither were you right? No, that's right. But if I try putting myself in the position of a policeman, with a baton, shield, helmet and visor, and the support of similarly equipped colleagues, then I think I can imagine how terrifying a disabled man in a wheelchair must have been. Funny, but I don't see hypothetical scenarios and 'potential rationale' being dreamt up in defence of some of the 'thugs' that clashed with police. Good, so we can get back to the discussion... I think I made it clear, above, that use of 'force' is not restricted to simply 'hitting' people because they are violent ... reasonble force can be used to achieve a policing purposes, such as taking hold of someone and moving them out of the way (to prevent an obstruction for example). The information is out there to find, and you don't have to look hard.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 18:06:44 GMT 1
I don't wish to be rude El Pres, but your arguments are ridiculous. Especially this. "Standard military tactic, as I recall using a number of times as we foot patrolled Al-Ashar district - common sense it should be employed here as it is designed to protect you in such unpredictable situations." He is in a disabled, unarmed protester, he's not an insurgent. You are trying to defend the indefensible. I'm not trying to be rude either Nicko, but it's not a difficult concept to grasp. Did you see the crowd surge after the officers moved the lad? Yes maybe there fault, but (and I'm getting sore fingers repeating myself) as I have already posted above, it is easy for one person to be pulled away by the crowd, especially if their back is turned. If you link up, and keep eyes all around, you're less of an easy target. Google Keith Blakelock; I think that example underpins my argument.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 15, 2010 18:39:50 GMT 1
I don't wish to be rude El Pres, but your arguments are ridiculous. Especially this. "Standard military tactic, as I recall using a number of times as we foot patrolled Al-Ashar district - common sense it should be employed here as it is designed to protect you in such unpredictable situations." He is in a disabled, unarmed protester, he's not an insurgent. You are trying to defend the indefensible. I'm not trying to be rude either Nicko, but it's not a difficult concept to grasp. Did you see the crowd surge after the officers moved the lad? Yes maybe there fault, but (and I'm getting sore fingers repeating myself) as I have already posted above, it is easy for one person to be pulled away by the crowd, especially if their back is turned. If you link up, and keep eyes all around, you're less of an easy target. Google Keith Blakelock; I think that example underpins my argument. I'm well aware of what happened to Keith Blakelock. It doesn't underpin your argument.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 15, 2010 18:50:08 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 19:01:07 GMT 1
I'm not trying to be rude either Nicko, but it's not a difficult concept to grasp. Did you see the crowd surge after the officers moved the lad? Yes maybe there fault, but (and I'm getting sore fingers repeating myself) as I have already posted above, it is easy for one person to be pulled away by the crowd, especially if their back is turned. If you link up, and keep eyes all around, you're less of an easy target. Google Keith Blakelock; I think that example underpins my argument. I'm well aware of what happened to Keith Blakelock. It doesn't underpin your argument. You were saying the copper was dragged away, I was saying looked to me like a standard extraction procedure during crowd trouble, as used by the military. You sais he is not an insurgent (I think we agree on that) - so reading between the lines I think you were implying there is no need for the police to use this tactic. I point to what happened to PC Blakelock as a very good reason to use this tactic. I think there was another incident recently too, at the Rangers Man U game a couple of years back, where the police officer trips, but is not noticed by his colleagues as they are all running away not keeping eye ball on each other. He is then beaten by the mob that get hold of him. I'm not saying the lad is the threat in this part of the incident, but the crowd. Cant spell it out anymore, if you disagree still, lets leave it at that. Two good examples which underpin my argument here - watch the footage. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7406351.stm
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 15, 2010 19:24:59 GMT 1
I'm well aware of what happened to Keith Blakelock. It doesn't underpin your argument. You were saying the copper was dragged away, I was saying looked to me like a standard extraction procedure during crowd trouble, as used by the military. You sais he is not an insurgent (I think we agree on that) - so reading between the lines I think you were implying there is no need for the police to use this tactic. I point to what happened to PC Blakelock as a very good reason to use this tactic. I think there was another incident recently too, at the Rangers Man U game a couple of years back, where the police officer trips, but is not noticed by his colleagues as they are all running away not keeping eye ball on each other. He is then beaten by the mob that get hold of him. I'm not saying the lad is the threat in this part of the incident, but the crowd. Cant spell it out anymore, if you disagree still, lets leave it at that. Two good examples which underpin my argument here - watch the footage. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7406351.stmI don't see much of a mob to be honest. Some angry (quiet rightly) people, some of whom went to his aid, quiet rightly in my opinion. blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/12/15/jody-mcintyre-who%E2%80%99s-apathetic-now/They officers did wrong and they know it.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Dec 15, 2010 20:24:44 GMT 1
To be fair El Pres you are not making much sense on this one.
Those Police officers acted irresponsibly, unprofessionally and should be brought to account. Defending them distorts your otherwise sensible contributions.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 15, 2010 21:00:47 GMT 1
To be fair El Pres you are not making much sense on this one. Those Police officers acted irresponsibly, unprofessionally and should be brought to account. Defending them distorts your otherwise sensible contributions. Jamo thanks for your words of praise, means a lot to me comfroming a B&A institution such as yourself (being serious here)... However, to reiterate once again we're all basing our opinions on this incident without posession of the full facts, and many of us without knowledge of police policy, procedures and powers. I think my first post on this subject stated I was surmising why the officers acted as they did - and if this is accurate, then in law, and in the execution their duty I can't see anything specifically wrong, other than its not the sort of thing people like seeing. If my surmission is wrong, which it could well be (again I like many were not there, and do not have the full facts) then the officers have questions to be asked of them. Again as stated in my first post, any use of force has to be justified. Thereafter, the thread descended into microscopic anaysis of the events, with opinion voiced on what was done, and why ... I dont see how I'm not making much sense, but maybe that is the problem. Again, what really frustrates me here is the protests have been turned from the anti-government, to anti-police. Chiefly because it is now a recognised tactic of the anarchistic elements (again as I stated in a previous post) to individually undermine police officers to the point where they can not do their duty - either by being demoralised, or by being suspended from duty for investigations to be undertaken. We saw this with the G20 - Sgt Smelie (unfortunate name) was hung out to dry by the press; the home office; and his Force. But has since been cleared by the courts of any wrong doing. Is this tactic effective? Certainly. Is it morally right? Certainly not in my opinion. This matter should not be students Vs the police, it should be students vs the government. However, the growing sentiment is that the police act for the government, and not independently and impartially; I have yet to see any evidence in these protests where the police are acting as tools of the state.
|
|
|
Post by Hatfieldshrew on Dec 16, 2010 9:19:18 GMT 1
[/img] Yes, those officers must have been in fear of their lives as that wheelchair trundled menacingly towards them.[/quote] They may have thought he was a newspaper seller
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 16, 2010 16:16:51 GMT 1
More light being shed? I read the link Nicko, thought this reply in the blog might flesh out the incident a little... ..."Well, we've already had a post from someone who witnessed the aftermath of the second incident who has told us that immediately afterwards Mr McIntyre stood on the pavement encouraging other demonstrators in their violence. Encouraging or assisting crime and wilful obstruction of a police officer are, of course, both offences, the former under the Serious Crime Act and the latter under the Police Act. As to the first incident, we have also had the eye-witness account of a freelance photographer (directly contradicting those of Mr McIntyre) who said that, not only did the police officers involved move Mr McIntyre to a place of safety as gently as possible and at personal risk of injury, but that Mr McIntyre became so agitated that he attempted to assault a police officer. Again, assault of a police officer is an offence under the Police Act As to his inability to cause any damage with his wheelchair, this blogger on the 'Jewish Chronicle' says: "At one of the demonstrations McIntyre deliberately directed his wheelchair to run over my foot, causing me agonising pain. I have no idea if he did something similar at the student demonstration last week. But unless his condition has changed since he ran over my foot some 4 months ago, his assertion to Brown ("I can't physically use my wheelchair myself") is simply not true. He is only too adept at using his wheelchair, sometimes as an offensive weapon." There are other references to Mr McIntyres activities which, if true, are decidedly unpleasant, not least amongst them his previous "form" with regard to his recollection of events and what actually happpened. I see that the Met has instigated an inquiry which is only right and proper, but it is clear that Mr McIntyre, far from being the ingenue some would like to believe him, knows exactly how to play the victim role when it suits and the aggressor when the opportunity arises...."
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 16, 2010 20:11:03 GMT 1
What an astonishing comment to make. That's the point. Some of the police were so "in control" of themselves that they treated a disabled man like that. He was as much a threat as Ian Tomlinson a couple of years ago who, if you recall, wasn't a protester but happened to be in the same place. He was walking away but was pushed with such force that he later died. Isn't it right to be concerned that the police treated a disabled man in this way, just as it would if he'd been an elderly person or a child or a pregnant woman ...? I don't deny the police have a difficult job sometimes - I just think it's fair to expect them do it a lot better! Is that asking so much? I'm not going to reargue the point, as I've already discussed the potential rationalé for their actions. I don't see why it is an astonishing comment to make, given the circumstances. Different circumstances would require a different response. Sadly this is the real world, where ideal solutions are not always possible to achieve. No doubt where things are not often as they seem viewed in hindsight with access to a shaky recording posted on youtube, edited to only show the elements that benefit the agenda of those concerned in promoting division between 'the public' and 'the police'. 20,000 protestors, 2000 police officers; anarchists travelling from all over the world to promote violence; 42 protestors injured and 22 officers injured; untold damage to property and disruption to the lives of those living and working in central London; and we are so grieved by this? Perhaps my life experiences have hardened me somewhat, but I find it difficult to have much truck with the lads claim of police brutality in this given incident. Again, another bizarre statement from you. Are you not concerned that 64 people were injured? Yes if they're police, no if they're protesters it would seem. How you can equate the footage of the Jody McIntyre incident with what happened to Keith Blakelock beggars belief. You might just as well say the police can be a law unto themselves because otherwise what happened to Blakelock might happen to them. The McIntyre incident has a closer parallel to the Tomlinson case, about which you remain silent. Your life experiences haven't so much hardened you as made you incapable of seeing a different perspective. That's blinkered, not hardened.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Dec 16, 2010 20:21:15 GMT 1
They officers did wrong and they know it. Sorry Nick but you cant prove that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2010 20:25:00 GMT 1
Well, Rather than type for ages, I actually agree with the tactics used, and agree with EL H, I would be interesting to see how certain people who condem from the comfort of an armchair, without full facts act when being outnumbered 20-1, not knowing who is a trouble causer would react when faced with a baying mob........... regardless of a helmet and visor........... ever been dragged backwards by a visor that someone has grabbed hold of?? its scarey............
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 16, 2010 20:42:55 GMT 1
I'm not going to reargue the point, as I've already discussed the potential rationalé for their actions. I don't see why it is an astonishing comment to make, given the circumstances. Different circumstances would require a different response. Sadly this is the real world, where ideal solutions are not always possible to achieve. No doubt where things are not often as they seem viewed in hindsight with access to a shaky recording posted on youtube, edited to only show the elements that benefit the agenda of those concerned in promoting division between 'the public' and 'the police'. 20,000 protestors, 2000 police officers; anarchists travelling from all over the world to promote violence; 42 protestors injured and 22 officers injured; untold damage to property and disruption to the lives of those living and working in central London; and we are so grieved by this? Perhaps my life experiences have hardened me somewhat, but I find it difficult to have much truck with the lads claim of police brutality in this given incident. Again, another bizarre statement from you. Are you not concerned that 64 people were injured? Yes if they're police, no if they're protesters it would seem. How you can equate the footage of the Jody McIntyre incident with what happened to Keith Blakelock beggars belief. You might just as well say the police can be a law unto themselves because otherwise what happened to Blakelock might happen to them. The McIntyre incident has a closer parallel to the Tomlinson case, about which you remain silent. Your life experiences haven't so much hardened you as made you incapable of seeing a different perspective. That's blinkered, not hardened. Vence, your first paragraph makes no sense. I can't recall where I said I was not concerned with the injuries to the protesters. I was pointing out that all of this, and people are upset because a disabled lad who was apparently obstructive, was picked up and moved out of the way. You're missing my point so badly here...read my posts again and read the messages they are in response to. The Blakelock incident AND the incident in Manchester was made to underline why I believe the officers in this incident extracted themsleves in the manner they did from the crowd which approached them. This was in response to NickO's post stating one had to be dragged away. Did I say I thought young Jody or the crowd were attempting to take their heads off with a machete? No. Do you know much about crowd dynamics and crowd control? I doubt it. Did I say at any time the police can act unilatrerally? No. If you read my posts again, you will note I stated the police must justify their actions. Also you might like to re-read my posts in relation to the Tomlinson incident. Again at no point did I state that the officer involved was right to do what he did. However, I offered hypotheses as to why he did what he did; and under what circumstances he could act as he did. Again I recall stating that a use of force should be fully justified. Your accusation of me not being able to see a different perspective is equally unfounded, given I have consistently reiterated that all actions by officers in both incidents have to be justified. In fact, blinkered is propbably a term better laid at your door, and that of others, where there seems to be an automatic negative reaction to these officers actions without being in posession of the facts or the wider picture. All I have done is counter argue the conclusions which have been leapt to by many here; that the police actions in this particular incident were totally unacceptable. I have simply tried to debate why officers may have acted as they did. Ironic you have completely ignored my last post, above, which seems to shed more light on why the officers may have acted in this manner. Independant witnesses apparently stating young Jody was obstructive; abusive; violent; and inciting criminal damage and violence in others before, during and after the incidents recorded in the footage. Please note my use here of the word apparent; note I am not jumping to conclusions, but keeping an open mind. Can you say the same about the way in which you judged the officers here?
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Dec 16, 2010 20:53:40 GMT 1
Interesting to see how the police made a 'reasonable adjustment' to the service that they gave to disabled member of the public. Ok, I'me just causing trouble
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Dec 16, 2010 21:10:43 GMT 1
One could argue that if the protest was peaceful the incident wouldn't have happened thus the demonstrators may have to shoulder some of the blame.
The issue is highlighted by the fact this young chap is disabled to some degree. I feel this alone has caused personal emotions to blur the issue for some.
I do not defend the Police with regard to this incident, I am however interested as to what the facts of the matter really are. There will be few on here who have ever had to deal with such incidents, there are fewer on here who understand the training the Police go through.
The Police it seems are not allowed either mitigating factors or mistakes. As I stated earlier perhaps we should wait until the incident has been investigated fully before we judge.
Should the Officers have behaved incorrectly to a member of the public they should then be dealt with with regards to retraining and discipline.
|
|