G20 Protests: Is This A Fair Statement?

[paraffin]

The Chairman of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, has been questioned by MPs and said to them:

"Clearly the pictures are disturbing, but what I would also say to people is, as members of the committee have correctly pointed out, the pictures are a snapshot. And what we will not do, and what I will not do is make assumptions prior to the completion of our investigation. We will make our decisions on the basis of the total evidence we collect, not on the basis of today's headlines."

[trt]

Who is wrong,

The police trying to keep the peace, or the protesters/public shouting abuse/pushing the the police, abusing etc, and not forgetting the women that sold her story to the press for ����� for showing her scar and that she is out of work, on benifits and a druggie.

[jason.p]

Just because the woman involved does not fit your personal idea of a perfect lifestyle does not make her a legitimate target for police brutality. I find these attitudes, that have been repeated in several recent threads, deeply disturbing. Persecution of minority groups is not a road we want to go down, we could all find ourselves on the wrong side at some time in the future.

[jake-the-peg]

It's a completely fair statement - obviously no body should jump to action on a couple of seconds of film without a proper investigation.

Having said that his investigation will need to centre on whether the officers response with a baton blow to the legs was "proportionate" and if so how..

I'm pretty certain that if I stood up in court and tried to argue that my hiting someone one the legs with a baton was proportionate with being shouted at and maybe pushed - Well I don't think I'd fancy my chances.

I'd echo Jason's point. Her lifestyle is completely irrelevant to the incident.

Although perhaps the money she's made from the press should be taken into consideration if she eventually receives compenstaion.

(That might be a good rule to pass into law in general)

[cassa333]

Although I believe her background shouldn't be a considertion it could be pertinant to the facts IF for example she was high on something at the time and we had not seen all the evidence.

Unless the officer could see (in her eyes or manner etc) that she was high and that she was a danger then I dought that it is relevent.

I understand that the officer had been on duty for 36 hours? If that is the case then sleep deprivation and the heightened stress of the situation could have made him over react.

If this is the case who's fault is it that he was on that long? At the end of the day he may well be the best police man in the world but perhaps because of the above may have tipped over the edge.

[wired]

Yes, a fair statement and obviously they're
searching around for mitigating circumstances to quote and while I agree that some of the events must have been quite frightening for the police a few of them went in on the offensive, BUT a 3rd post mortem? how many more will they conduct until the evidence is to their liking and whatever happened to rest in peace??

[Julnar]

I think it is a fair comment and snapshots should not be viewed as the general response of the police under difficult circumstances. However, if all the evidence does lead to a few bad apples in the police force being severely reprimanded, the IPCC must not shy away from their duty and look for further excuses to explain away unacceptable behaviour. There should be no whitewash. Also, the majority of police officers reacted professionally on the day and should not be tarnished by the outbursts of the few. It's a difficult balancing act and I don't envy them the task.

[123everton]

One of the biggest questions is why was he allowed to perform his duties without his identifying numbers?

[Haggisdj]

Another part of the scenario may have been, and I'll try and explain myself as clearly as possible.

What if something more pressing was occurring, or the police thought might occur, and there was someone very irritating who was being obstructive and wouldn't get out of the way?

[Haggisdj]

I've just read that back and it's not very clear...

[Strauss]

If people are arrested and the police cannot find enough evidence to charge them, do we want the police to release them without charge or bend the evidence?

If physical action is required, do we want to police to aim at the legs, or some other, more vulnerable part of the body?

In answer to the point about the identifying numbers, I have been retired from the police for some years (and pleased to be so). I remember the times when demonstrators picked on an officer, chanted his number and attacked him. Because of this, when riot gear was first issued, there was no facility on it for numbers to be worn. I do not know the present instructions, but would accept that old habits die hard.