Protesters and St Paul's

[amateur51]

I wasn't aware that you were present at the incident, Amateur; I can only deduce that you were, given that you are so certain that a "disproportionate" amount of force was used. Please enlighten us as to the exact sequence of events.

If it took 11 officers and pepper spray to subdue him

And he's dead. So that's what informs my assertion about its being 'disproportionate, Mr Pee

[Mr Pee]

And he's dead. So that's what informs my assertion about its being 'disproportionate, Mr Pee

Despite having not the faintest idea of what happened, the level of resistance being offered, whether any weapons were involved, the possible risk of self harm, the potential risk that the officers were faced with, or indeed knowledge of any pre-existing medical condition that may have contributed to his death.

But these are minor side- issues. Don't let them get in the way of your biased and ill-informed viewpoint, whatever you do.

[Nick Armstrong]

[amateur51]

Point taken

I'll let the twerp alone - but it does make me question the universal franchise, y'know

[Mr Pee]

Point taken.

I'll let the twerp alone- but it does make me question the universal franchise, y'know

[ahinton]

who owns the land that forms the precincts of St Paul's? the church? the Corporation of London?
I only ask because if the church owns the land and they have said the protesters (and by implication their tents) can stay, then I don't see that anyone else has any say in the matter.

I don't know for sure, but whoever owns it, there would be the usual health and safety, security, etc. issues at stake if it is designated for public use; that the owners may have some jurisdiction over it by virtue of being the owners does not necessarily imply that they would accordingly be entitled to cordon it off and/or confiscate anything left on any part of it without let or hindrance.

[ahinton]

As for the pepper spray and tazers, surely the police should have every piece of equipment necessary to defend themselves, given the dangerous situations they often venture into

So shouldn't every other British citizen have them also, for the same reason, given that British law makes some allowance fo the rights of citizens to defend themselves in dangerous situations; the police amy indeed venture into dangerous situations from time to time - this is part of what taxpayers pay them to do - but they do not have any monopoly on so doing.

Do also bear in mind that, as I've indicated previously, if police are able to come by and use such weapons legitimately (subject, of course, to their correct and appropriate use only), so will others. No, I don't possess a taser or any other designated item of weaponry, but that's obviously not the point.

[Flosshilde]

As for the pepper spray and tazers, surely the police should have every piece of equipment necessary to defend themselves, given the dangerous situations they often venture into. And a small minority carry handguns, which are used extremely rarely. I think you've been watching too many Dirty Harry films.

Mr P clearly believes that whatever the police do, they are right - e.g. they must have had a reason for shooting an innocent man in the head while he was being held down, & we shouldn't question it.

I wonder how far the police would have to go in covert operations, shooting people, unlawfully detaining people taking part in lawful activities, violently assaulting people while they are in police custody, and so on, before Mr P thought they had gone too far? Mr P. beware - by the time you wake up it will be too late - the police will be in charge.

[ahinton]

Mr P clearly believes that whatever the police do, they are right - e.g. they must have had a reason for shooting an innocent man in the head while he was being held down, & we shouldn't question it.

I wonder how far the police would have to go in covert operations, shooting people, unlawfully detaining people taking part in lawful activities, violently assaulting people while they are in police custody, and so on, before Mr P thought they had gone too far? Mr P. beware - by the time you wake up it will be too late - the police will be in charge.

I have no idea; perhaps he will tell us. In the meantime, I am reminded that one thing which he always seems loath to do is accept that, if the police are allocated certain weaponry for appropriate use only, it will inevitably also become available to others outside the police who are not be subject to the contractual restrictions on its use that apply to the police (not the self-same weapons, of course, unless they're stolen from the police - I mean examples of the same devices). In any event, the prospect - if indeed prospect it is - that anyone (even Mr Pee) might consider any bunch of humans to be infallible is clearly a good deal less than welcome, especially if that bunch happens to be the police whom he admits are charged with having to venture from time to time into stressful situations as a martter of course!

[Magnificat]

[QUOTE

And we still haven't had a resolution of the murder by the police of Mark Duggan in Tottengham nearly three months ago that coincided with the start of the riots. What a shame there isn't as much urgency to investigate what happened to Mark Duggan as there is to speedily process the thieves associated with the riots and to hand them disproportionately harsh sentences[/QUOTE]

Absolutely agree with you amateur 51.

If only the police dealt with the young thugs who terrorise their neighbourhoods day in day out, month in month out, and year in year out and never see the inside of a prison cell in with the same alacrity as they have pursued the rioters and looters ( many, by the way, from decent backgrounds, first offenders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and unfortunately followed the herd.)

Some of the sentencing has been way over the top for opportunistic looters not directly involved in the violent rioting whatever the Lord Chief Miscarriage of Justice sitting on his rich, smug, fat, arse in the Court of Appeal says about being intrinsically involved as opposed to just receiving stolen goods.

The sentence of six months for the chap who was on his way home from his girlfriend's house for a first offence of pinching a pack of bottled water from an already looted shop reminded me of the excesses of the American justice system we Brits like to make fun of e.g their "three strikes and you're out" rule where a thief can get life without parole for a third offence of stealing a piece of pizza.

And four years for trying to incite a riot that didn't happen on Facebook. You could get less for killing someone!! Who wants a couple of guileless nerds to be brutalised by the prison system and cost us a fortune keeping them inside instead of paying something back to the community for their stupidity by voluntary work?

Our crumbling criminal justice system has definitely been brought into more disrepute than ever as a result of the riots.

However, getting back to St Paul's.

I would still like to know what the health and safety issues really are. A report in one of today's papers quotes Jonathan Dimbleby who noted, when visiting the camp, that the steps and area of the Churchyard directly in front of the cathedral were entirely clear. The Dean and Chapter have made no attempt to let worshippers in they have just closed the church completely. To me this is simply disgraceful as I have said above. To surrender to the convenient 'elf and safety excuse so completely is unforgiveable.

It is said that the cathedral authorities are under pressure from wealthy City businessmen and financiers who are donors to take action to clear the protesters but I think trying to coerce them into leaving by making them feel guilty for the closing of the cathedral and thereby stopping services and the commercial activities that help to keep it going is going to backfire badly. There is already talk of Christmas services being cancelled. St Paul's seem to have totally lost the plot as well as a lot of money.

VCC

[MrGongGong]

Mr P
there was a question a while back (you never seem to be able to answer simple questions or ignore them ???)

it was this


so tell me DO you really think that the Police NEVER make any mistakes or arrest the wrong people ?


A simple YES or NO will do

[Mr Pee]

Of course they do. What a ridiculous question. However unlike some, I do not therefore automatically jump to the conclusion that the police are always wrong and that the presumption of fault automatically applies to them in any given case.

[MrGongGong]

[QUOTE
And four years for trying to incite a riot that didn't happen on Facebook. You could get less for killing someone!! Who wants a couple of guileless nerds to be brutalised by the prison system and cost us a fortune keeping them inside instead of paying something back to the community for their stupidity by voluntary work?

does this mean (i guess it does ) that anyone quoting the Surrealist manifesto on the internet
"open the prisons disband the army"
is likely to go to prison for inciting a non event ?????

I guess Artaud would be locked up in Cameron's Britain then

[MrGongGong]

Of course they do. What a ridiculous question. However unlike some, I do not therefore automatically jump to the conclusion that the police are always wrong and that the presumption of fault automatically applies to them in any given case.

That's a real surprise to me
because from everything else you have written you seem to have assumed that unless you are doing something wrong you have nothing to fear from the police
the idea that assuming that some people think that they are always wrong is YOURs and yours alone

actually on second thoughts
give me an example where you think they have made a mistake !

[ahinton]

Of course they do. What a ridiculous question. However unlike some, I do not therefore automatically jump to the conclusion that the police are always wrong and that the presumption of fault automatically applies to them in any given case.

The composer Sorabji used to say "questions are never embarrassing; answers sometimes are!". By the same token, it is answers rather than questions that are at greaer risk of being ridiculous and, in this case, it is most obviously so. No one else here jumps to the conclusion that the police are always wrong just because they are not always right either! The fact remains, however, that when you or I make a mistake, the consequences are often far less grave than is the case when the police do so - and this is what matters. Again, I have made it clear in the past that I do not pretend that the police have an easy task to undertake, but they are charged - and paid for by the shareholders (i.e. the taxpayers) - to do it and are accordingly accountable to their paymasters for how they do it, including their mistakes and the consequences of those mistakes. Remember also that the police are charged with upholding the law and are no more above the law than the rest of us and that, in some instances when complaints against the police are upheld, compensation has to be paid by them to the successful complainants and, of course, this, too, is funded by their paymasters, the taxpayers. May I express the fond hope that you never suffer the misfortune to find yourself a victim of innappropriate and unjustified behaviour on the part of the police?

Whilst I can accept in principle that absentee protesters are perhaps not doing as much as they could to justify their protest (a matter which you have understandably brought into question over the St. Paul's issue), you would nevertheless be better advised to introduce some proportionality into your thinking on such matters by concentrating your energies on giving due consideration to why these protests are occurring in the first place rather than droning on about what the police ought to do about them, particularly as the police ought to be doing nothing beyond monitoring them until and unless they give rise to clear breaches of the law.