Wednesday, April 08, 2009

How the G20 police video thingy will pan out.....

No doubt this post will get me labelled as some sort of fascist and supporter of police brutality, but I always find these sort of demos and violence things highly amusing (I will probably get slated for using the word "amusing" too given someone died). The thing is though; this sort of incident produces nothing but absolute crap from both sides of the political fence and I'm concerning myself with that.

On the Left, which is pretty much always the demonstrator side in these cases, there is always a tendency to watch out for "police brutality", be it a light push, to a good old-fashioned shit-kicking session. In fact, if a policeman tickled a demonstrator it would not be surprising to see some dumbass lefty whining about it.

Meanwhile, from the Right, we tend to see an instinctive bias towards defending the Police. Usually noting, quite rightly in many cases, that their job is to maintain order and if some crazy crusties intent on smashing the state go wild in the streets of London as if they're infected with the Rage virus from 28 Days Later, then the Police have to do what they can and sadly "shit happens".

Of course, what we can guarantee from this video is that whatever the IPCC decides there will be someone on the Left that screams "whitewash" from the rooftops. The Right on the other hand will argue, as noted, that the shit that happens happened.

Was the policeman with the baton a bit naughty for knocking this guy to the ground? On the face of it, just an ickle bit and he shold probably be bollocked in some way for it. Is it likely that the whack caused him to wander off and have a heart attack some minutes later? Who knows - it doesn't matter because even if it did or didn't there will still be enough that believe it did (see "whitewash" point) and boy will they shout it loudly.

Thus, the end result os this will be - as is usually the way - that the actions of one policeman will get used by those on the Left who are not necessarily violent as yet more evidence that free protest is being curtailed by creeping fascism of the state.

They'll probably do it whilst ignoring, and thereby tacitly accepting (a) the violence by their protesting peers, and (b) the creeping fascism of the state that comes in the form of certain social authoritarian engineering policies they support, such as hard-line environmentalism and other curtailments to freedom.

Likewise the actions of the many violent protesters will be held aloft by the Right, who will vocally point out the inconsistent argument that are coming from the Left. The instant charge in return from the Left will be that they're ignoring, and thereby tacitly supporting, fascistic police brutality. Right back at ya! Yaa! Boo! Etcetra etcetra. Yawn!

Whilst all this is going on the rest of the country - most of whom couldn't really give a crap about either the jolly in London involving world leaders brown-nosing Obama, or the crusty unwashed protesters ruining peoples’ ability to get to work without having to hold their breathe - will carry on about their daily lives thinking "The whole bloody lot of them are wankers aren't they?".

Plus ça change

47 comments:

Anonymous said...
8 Apr 2009 12:25:00  

What right do the police have to knock anyone to the ground unless they are resisting arrest? For a presumably young, fit policeman to do this to the character in the video looks like bullying to me.

Conand said...
8 Apr 2009 12:29:00  

'the actions of one policeman will get used by those on the Left who are not necessarily violent as yet more evidence that free protest is being curtailed by creeping fascism of the state.'

The state is run by the left, and has been for over a decade.

Witterings From Witney said...
8 Apr 2009 12:40:00  

Dizzy, another fair opinion, like that of A Very British Dude. I posted that a tad less condemnation of view might be in order until the full facts are known. As I remarked on AVBD's comments, there are other unknowns in this if he was on his way home he did not seem to be in any hurry and if caught up in a demo of any kind and the police 'request' you to move - if you have any sense you move! The alternative is that the police will help you!

If the police have 'mis-bahaved' then fine - lets throw the book at them.

Peter said...
8 Apr 2009 12:57:00  

"Was the policeman with the baton a bit naughty for knocking this guy to the ground? On the face of it, just an ickle bit and he shold probably be bollocked in some way for it."

- 'A bit naughty'? I know this is the predictable response, but you're trivialising what happened. A policemen, a person charged with upholding law and order ASSAULTED someone and then the Police LIED about it (claiming that Tomlinson had had no contact with the Police that day prior to his death). That's serious stuff, even if the poor guy hadn't died.

Mark Reckons said...
8 Apr 2009 13:03:00  

Dizzy, I personally think that this video will make a lot of people (including much of the general public, not just the politically interested) disgusted with the behaviour of the police.

That is a bad thing because for the police to function well, they need the general support of the public.

There will doubtless be extremes at both ends of the political spectrum and indeed I have seen some blog posts today that have gone for histrionics over measured comment. However, many such as myself (I hope) have been more measured and will continue to be so.

The caricature of both sides that you paint here is not true of the large majority of political activists.

JMB said...
8 Apr 2009 13:22:00  

It is worth listening to the interview on The World at One with the third year medical student who went to the aid of Mr Tomlinson.

She says none of the various version of events from the police correspond with what she saw.

She asked someone to call an ambulance and protected Mr Tomlinson from the crowd as they were moved towards him on the ground. The police would not speak to her and also would not speak to the ambulance emergency operator who was giving instructions on someone's mobile phone.

What level of training do the "Police Medics" have? Are they just first aiders or fully qualified paramedics?

dizzy said...
8 Apr 2009 13:24:00  

"Dizzy, I personally think that this video will make a lot of people (including much of the general public, not just the politically interested) disgusted with the behaviour of the police."

This is based on the assumption that the public give a shit about this sort of thing more than they do about a thick bird dying of cervical cancer, or which It girl is shagging which footballer.

Mass media engenders mass observal disengagement. The disengaged have always be there of course, they just couldn't afford the Internet or newspaper in the past.

JMB said...
8 Apr 2009 13:26:00  

The various versions of the events that have come from the police PR department have all differed from what people at the scene saw as well as the video.

Is this because the PR department just make up what they think happened or have police officers been lying to them in their accounts of events? Surely they must have realised that there were inconsistencies in the accounts?

Anonymous said...
8 Apr 2009 13:34:00  

Disgusted Grange-over Sands

I agree such things will happen. I am desperatly sorry for the man's family and to a certain degree to the copper I have faced a riot in Ulster and it ain't funny.

The old sensible world required a magistrate to stand up and read the Riot Act and call upon a crowd to dispurse.

After a resaonable time interval any level of force may be applied up to and including lethal force.
Harsh but in the interests of the public at large.

Incidently why are decent indiginous people arrested for quietly reading out a list of names at Cenotaph whem hoards of new british can run riot in same restricted area for hour after hour?

Anonymous said...
8 Apr 2009 14:06:00  

I'm sorry Dizzy but I don't think you should categorise the responses at Left or Right Wing on the basis of how people react to police actions.

After the unlawful killing of Jean Charles de Menezes the first response of the Met Police was to lie about the event and the lead up to it, and this continued until the witness and cctv evidence became public and they were forced to accept that they had got it wrong. Even then, the officers concerned colluded in their reports to cover their backs as far as they could.

The incidents when innocent members of the public are killed by the police are bad enough but the real problem in the institutional cover-up which always follows. Mistakes happen and it is tragic when someone dies because of them. What seriously annoys me is the lies that follow and it is one reason why the Police have lost so much of the public's support, includung mine.

This problem is endemic throughout most of the State structure and is probably the main reason that so many people have given up believing almost anything we are told by "those in charge". By the way, most of my friends think that my political views are somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, so I am no leftie loony!

Faux Cu said...
8 Apr 2009 14:08:00  

Dizzy

I have reached a stage in my life when I am actually beginning to believe there is a very definite scheme to control the media akin to that of Nazi Germany.

I look at the emissions from the Brown Broadcasting Corporation and shake my head in disbelief at what they headline and what they say.

In Scotland the two major quality broadsheets are pursuing a Labour agenda that would be more appropriate of a cut and paste rediffusion from Labour Propaganda Central.


The politicisation of the body politic started with the Police.
It started with Howe, when Home Secretary, when he financially incentified the Police carry out road laws.

It was a made an art form by Bliar as he assiduously politicised the Police and the Civil Service. No longer were they serving us, the people but, their own career paths which was intimately tied to Blair's headline need of the moment. Go read up on the Rand Corporation, starting from the Vietnam War.

Brown has just tightened up on this by way of his Stalinist DNA.

The Police are in the Medja business now. They lie through their collective back teeth by way of spin and headline grabbing photo ops to portray that they are on the job; viz the two flats raided, one before and one during the G20 period. The one during, in London, was obviously done for the benefit of the media. Long haired unwasheds in a "squat" arrested, handcuffed by way of plastic cable ties (now there is a Police double entendre if ever I saw one)and made to squat outside the flat for the avoricious snapping of the invited (read approved members of the 5th estate.) How many of the accused from the photo op have been charged and with what?

Turning now to the unrest at the G20, was the RBS branch trashed on live tele the only building in that vicinity that was not boarded up? Why was it not boarded up if it was to be in the middle of what the Police were trailing as a day of violence and insurrection (my words)?

Moreover the raging nutter hurling the litter basket through the window did so, full face and with action replays for the Press. I would have thought he would have been easy to identify from his mug alone, without going to the bother of lifting DNA from the basket. Has the nutter been identified and arrested. Ever heard of Agents Provocateurs, something with which this UK state has been adept at using for damn near a century.

The man who died, from what we are not sure, although we are told was a heart attack, had no part to play in the demonstration was the subject of a cover up based in spin, obfuscation and smear reminiscent of the de Menezes fiasco earlier.

So first there was no contact then the Police were attacked when they tried to offer aid to him.

Now a different story is coming out.

Yes there was contact and the female officer called Donna did hit him with her asp and did bundle him off his feet from behind (at least it looks so to me). I have read comments on other boards from people purporting to be Army Officers who have been in charge of controlling riots in N Ireland and the Balkans saying the violence visited on the dead man was completely unnecessary and disproportionate.

No, as far as I have seen and heard, from witnesses, there was no hail of bottles on the Police as they tended the dying man.

There are also unsubstantiated reports that his treatment was shielded from view and carried out by Police Officers, who were supposedly "medics". Maybe but I have no trust in whatever comes out of the mouths of official Police spokespeople or leaked by the either.

I could go on and on regarding legislation to protect the identity of individual officers, ID cards, DNA recording etc etc etc but to cut to the chase, the body politic of the UK is corrupted from the head down.

They Labour Party has corrupted everything they control and touch.

The Labour Government has, since when Tony Blair came to power, has eroded our rights and filled their boots with booty, our money.

It is getting to the stage that something volcanic is required to remove this parasitical class of career politicians who see us, the voters as an earning opportunity.
This class consists of sociopathic egocentic looters and within their midst there is a cadre out to make this the new Stalinist norm.

Now we know why Brown ensures that the maximum number of troops are on duty outside the UK.

JuliaM said...
8 Apr 2009 14:27:00  

"For a presumably young, fit policeman to do this to the character in the video looks like bullying to me."

So never mind what it actually was, let's go on what it looks like...?

I recall a few months back seeing a copper 'viciously assault' a woman, rolling down a flight of stairs and acting quite deranged, to those viewing the video. 'The brute', went up the howl from the usual suspects...

It actually turned out quite different when we heard both sides, didn't it?

Prodicus said...
8 Apr 2009 14:44:00  

The Amazon ad on the right of this post (on my screen, anyway) is for 4 books on police brutality. Clever, that.

Anonymous said...
8 Apr 2009 14:45:00  

During 1968 there were demonstrations in London against the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia following the "Prague Spring". I was returning home to my flat in Bayswater one evening after attending night classes at West London College in Notting Hill Gate (Holland Park School). I hadn't been home so was still dressed in a business suit and was carrying a brief case. There was a large but well mannered demonstration going on at the Bayswater Road end of Millionaires' Row where the Russian Embassy was. I stopped briefly to take it in and was swiftly told to move on by a young policeman (he seemed young to me and I was only about 22!). Fair enough, they were trying to keep at least part of the pavement clear. I turned to walk away, but someone was coming towards me in the only narrow channel still clear to walk through. I stepped back to let them through and the same policeman immediately pushed me very hard in the back and shouted, "I told you to move!". After a full day's work and a couple of hours' classes I was just a little bit stressed anyway, and I nearly turned round and hit him. That would inevitably have led to a criminal record for me. Fortunately, I just shouted something back at him and continued on my way, fuming. The point of all this is that police attitudes in such circumstances appear to have changed little over the years. From what I have read, Ian Tomlinson was no more a demonstrator than I was all those years ago but the police still have an ugly herd mentality.

It has been mentioned elsewhere that the police officer involved was very possibly a woman; looking at the video again I'd go along with that.

Until we have directly elected Chief Constables (and the Met Commissioner) the police will continue to alienate the law-abiding majority in the UK.

Old Holborn said...
8 Apr 2009 14:57:00  

Well, being a businessman, I took the day off, put on my outfit and went and protested myself. I challenged the communists, marxists and crusties on THEIR territory and on my terms.

I was "kettled", starved, denied water.

East Germany was eventually freed by enough people saying "actually, no. I have a job and a house and a daily life but I've had enough of this shite". Trust me, there were loads of exactly those people at the BoE last week as well.

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/04/old-holborn-tv-interview.html

Menelaus said...
8 Apr 2009 15:12:00  

The guy is obviously unsteady on his feet. Was he ill? Was he drunk? Was he already having heart trouble? We'll never know now, will we? One wonders if there is anything else to see on Her Maj's extensive CCTV network. No, we'll not see any of that either.

It's just another example of savage fucking stupidity and clueless arrogance. She did it because she could. One of the lads, eh? "Did you see me deck that twat?"

Paul Pinfield said...
8 Apr 2009 15:58:00  

Dizzy, whether or not the officer had any causal effect on the death of Ian Tomlinson, the lack of any future action (right or wrong) will re-enforce the belief that the police are never held criminally responsible when they assault / kill / injure anyone.

I don't know whether the police are responsible for or contributed to Mr Tomlinson's death, but I do know that they cannot be without blame all of the time, as the lack of convictions appears to indicate.

Newmania said...
8 Apr 2009 16:35:00  

Agreed Dizzy

http://iznewmania.blogspot.com/2009/04/well-arent-they-happy-as-pigs-in-shit.html

Anonymous said...
8 Apr 2009 18:27:00  

It might be difficult to prove anything, but I suspect if you asked most medical professionals they would tell you that the likelihood of these two incidents not being connected is pretty close to 0.

Do you not think _you_ would be a bit shocked if you were walking home from work and viciously assaulted by a policeman/woman?

The officer in question was definitely unlucky, to have done this to someone with a heart condition, but fuck me, that's what's going to happen sooner or later if you bash people for nothing.

I actually think this case seems a lot more worrying than the JC Menenzes case...

And I should point out - like anonymous above, not many people would dare call me left wing! ;)

Z.

Anonymous said...
8 Apr 2009 18:58:00  

got to say after a year of reading you and generally agreeing or being at least entertained by your posts, this one is complete wrongheaded shit.

UK police have got out of hand with the powers labour has granted it. this is an example.

After watching a good mainstream news reports on the who issue on ITV news, you can imagine my 'suprise' to find a nice new TERROR PLOT FOILED story fed out to the media junkies.

It is not a right/left debate, It is a stupid and non stupid debate. shame you fell on the wrong side this time.

Anonymous said...
8 Apr 2009 19:40:00  

Sorry, that's bollocks. As said above, the immediate denials and obfuscation, as per the de Menezes murder, are clear evidence of the typical police response to these situations. Lie first, ask questions later.

Given that not one of the ten or so police officers present has come forward, there is clearly now evidence of a conspiracy. If charges follow the IPCC investigation (some chance), all should be in the dock.

As regards CCTV, it is unthinkable that it doesn't exist, it's just now filed alongside the footage from Stockwell underground. Rest assured that if the police officer was the one being assaulted, we'd be seeing action replays from half a dozen angles worthy of Match of the Day.

Sir Ian Blair must be so proud.

Old Holborn said...
8 Apr 2009 21:06:00  

I notice a second autopsy is to be performed?

Wassup? Don't they trust the Official Police Coroner who stated:

"He slipped and had a heart attack, guv. See you at the Lodge on Friday for drinkies?"

CCTV was "turned off" last Wednesday. No, I'm not joking.

Source

Houdini said...
8 Apr 2009 22:08:00  

Man with his back to the assailant, walking away. Assailant attacks man deliberately in an unprovoked attack. Assailant goes to jail as this is a clear cut case.

Copper is guilty and if it was me or you that same copper would be arresting us, and he should be charged.

If Ian Tomlinson was squaring up to him... then maybe, if Ian Tomlinson was facing him...then maybe, if Ian Tomlinson was gobbing off...then maybe, but he wasn't and that makes all the difference.

sousbois said...
8 Apr 2009 22:55:00  

Some very fine words. In fact, very many fine words.

But, here's my take:

If you don't want to get wet, don't go out in the rain. If you don't want your head stoved in, don't go out when the riot police are operating.

daniel said...
8 Apr 2009 23:51:00  

a colleague of mine, who works with young offenders, was recently verbally attacked in the street by a drunkard who was know to police. My colleague knocked the man to the ground, causing the man to fracture his skull. The police charged him with GBH with intent and he is now at his majesty's pleasure. Should a serving police officer be treated differently? If so, why?

Anonymous said...
9 Apr 2009 05:18:00  

"a thick bird dying of cervical cancer"

You stay classy there Dizzy.

JuliaM said...
9 Apr 2009 05:20:00  

"As said above, the immediate denials and obfuscation, as per the de Menezes murder, are clear evidence of the typical police response to these situations. Lie first, ask questions later."

That's not a police tactic, per se.

That's a modern PR tactic.

Anonymous said...
9 Apr 2009 10:16:00  

If I hit someone with a baton, pushed them over and they later died I know what would happen to me.

Randomly attacking people in the street isn't acceptable for good reason. I wonder why no one comments that the officers colleagues appear on the video not to do anything to stop him doing it after the first time he hits him?

James said...
9 Apr 2009 11:39:00  

You've misjudged this one. This is De Menezes part II.

dizzy said...
9 Apr 2009 11:47:00  

"You've misjudged this one."

I was making an observatory comment of what would happen in the political arguments, I didn't actually make a judgement on the incident other than the observation that for most people it will not be something they muich think about.

I think what you actually mean is because I have not either (a) excused the Police in some way or (b) waved my hands around in panty-wetting hysteria, I'm on the wrong side of the argument by not actually placing myself on either side of the argument. Something which is patently bollocks.

Steve said...
9 Apr 2009 11:52:00  

The police behaviour, whilst wrong and worthy of disciplinary action, was typical of what we are all capable of in those circumstances. So cut the hypocrisy.

A sensible post Dizzy, in the midst of sanctimonious frenzy.

Old Holborn said...
9 Apr 2009 11:57:00  

WTF?

These thugs are trusted with our DNA. The right to peacefully protest is now effectively abolished. You might end up being killed by the Police.

How ironic

Tarquin said...
9 Apr 2009 12:23:00  

Harsh Dizzy - I do not support the creeping leftist nanny-state we have under Labour, and I certainly don't support a police officer throwing an innocent man to the ground

the actions of the police are becoming shocking - increased powers to 'deal' with peaceful protests, which is mostly what this was, are seriously threatening the trust we have in them

Lord Snooty said...
9 Apr 2009 13:26:00  

Jesus wept, Dizzy. This must be your worst ever post. And your 'response' to James' comment is truly weasel-like.

Lord Snooty said...
9 Apr 2009 13:27:00  

Jesus wept, Dizzy. This must be your worst ever post. And your 'response' to James' comment is truly weasel-like.

dizzy said...
9 Apr 2009 13:32:00  

Why is it the worst post ever? Enlighten me. Also what was weaselly. I have no opinion on this incident as currently reported, but I do, as a graduate in political analysis have an interest in the way the reaction to will pan out.

Anonymous said...
9 Apr 2009 13:42:00  

Steve said "The police behaviour, whilst wrong and worthy of disciplinary action, was typical of what we are all capable of in those circumstances."

That's bollocks. Are you a copper?

Personally even if I was a cop and even if I was directly ordered to knock someone to the ground, if they were not a threat I would not do so. I know what you are saying, a lot of people would, but please don't generalise like that, a _lot_ of us wouldn't.

Z.

word verification: Wroing. Close!

Anonymous said...
9 Apr 2009 13:43:00  

sousbois said "If you don't want to get wet, don't go out in the rain. If you don't want your head stoved in, don't go out when the riot police are operating."

So what's a self employed person who works in London meant to do on these occasions. Presume they will get their head staved in by the old bill so stay off work and lose money?

That is so totally wrong headed...

Z.

sousbois said...
9 Apr 2009 14:24:00  

Anonymous said "So what's a self employed person who works in London meant to do on these occasions. Presume they will get their head staved in by the old bill so stay off work and lose money? That is so totally wrong headed.."

--------

Yup. Stay away. Not even for a whole day - just a half day. Or leave early. Or stay late.

There's np need to be right on the front-line of a police confrontation, unless of course you want to be.

obangobang said...
9 Apr 2009 14:25:00  

Dizzy, old boy, you are completely missing the point of this incident. Whether one berates the 'Nazi' state police, or cheers the fact a 'crusty' got his comeuppance shows nothing but tribal loyalty. No story there.

The story is the police reaction to the death in the first place. It betrays an institutional approach to covering each others' backs and a determination that only their version of the 'truth' will be allowed into the media. According to the Guardian, the 'independent' IPCC turned up at their offices, with uniformed police, demanding they take the video of the assault off their website forthwith. Free press, eh?

Frankly, for one who is not normally shy about giving an opinion on most things, to profess to have no opinion on this, a pretty fundamental test of whether or not we live in a free democracy, is at best weak, and at worst pretty craven.

(W.V. cowedi - how apt)

dizzy said...
9 Apr 2009 14:27:00  

Why must I have an opinion?

Old Holborn said...
9 Apr 2009 14:56:00  

"There's np need to be right on the front-line of a police confrontation, unless of course you want to be."

It wasn't a police confrontation. It was peaceful protest.

We can argue all day but the bottom line FOR ME is not that the Police beat an innocent man (they have killed plenty of them before after all) but that it is now illegal for anybody to capture an image of them doing it and that the State funded media would not broadcast the image.

Very East German

sousbois said...
9 Apr 2009 15:06:00  

OH said "It wasn't a police confrontation. It was peaceful protest."

Yeah, right. Every 'peaceful protest' in the last 50 years has also contained a few psychotic policemen and a few insane crustys. Doesn't matter which you side with, there's always a few cracked heads and broken windows.

Best to stay well clear, eh?

Old Holborn said...
9 Apr 2009 15:14:00  

"Best to stay well clear, eh?"

That is why the Police beat up peaceful protesters. To teach us not to protest. You graduated with full honours I see.

sousbois said...
9 Apr 2009 15:24:00  

""Best to stay well clear, eh?"

That is why the Police beat up peaceful protesters. To teach us not to protest. You graduated with full honours I see."

So if you're NOT a protester, but some poor weak-hearted innocent, best to stay well clear, eh?

obangobang said...
9 Apr 2009 16:44:00  

I didn't say you 'must' have an opinion. I said that, IMO, not to voice an opinion on a matter such as this, is at best weak.

What's the point of your blog, otherwise?

WV: conumen - who's conning who?

dizzy said...
9 Apr 2009 17:44:00  

I was going to post a response here, but its worthy of a post, so will make it such.


 

dizzythinks.net is a participant in the Amazon Europe S.à.r.l. Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.co.uk/Javari.co.uk.