29 Jun 09
A report in Britain has stated that too many of the police policing the peaceful G20 demonstrations were inexperienced (okay... I added the peaceful part... it's called artistic license).
Now, what do I read on BBC teletekst (I don't know if it's findable on the web)? Let me quote for you:
"The MP's (edit: who wrote the report) said police must modify their behaviour in an age where their actions were easily filmed by the public."
Did I just hear you say: "What the...?"
That's right. The report seems to suggest that the police behaviour (killing people who were doing nothing, for example) was only "not so good" because people could film it, not that it was inherently wrong.
Is this a sign of the times? Or is this a cock-up on teletekst?
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by shavixmirI would say a sign of the times. We have been incrementally slipping into a world wide police state. It is slow, but obvious. The golden rule is becoming more relevent today. Those with the gold make the rules. Why do you think goverments do not want people without the gold to have firearms?
A report in Britain has stated that too many of the police policing the peaceful G20 demonstrations were inexperienced (okay... I added the peaceful part... it's called artistic license).
Now, what do I read on BBC teletekst (I don't know if it's findable on the web)? Let me quote for you:
"The MP's (edit: who wrote the report) said police must modif ...[text shortened]... inherently wrong.
Is this a sign of the times? Or is this a cock-up on teletekst?
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by joe beyserYou spent 2 years in Britain. Did you come away thinking that the citizens there should be allowed to arm themselves?
I would say a sign of the times. We have been incrementally slipping into a world wide police state. It is slow, but obvious. The golden rule is becoming more relevent today. Those with the gold make the rules. Why do you think goverments do not want people without the gold to have firearms?
29 Jun 09
1 edit
If a demonstration is peaceful, there is no need for police power. However, in some of demonstrations, involving certain issues, there are a higher risque of an escalating violence from a small subgroup of the demonstrators, not interested with the real issues but in fact seeking confrontation, a higher level of attention from police force must be under consideration.
In some demonstrations, it's not fighting between demonstrators and police that I'm worried about, but burning cars (owned by people that don't have anything to do with it), crushing windows (to establishements that don't have anything to do with it), stone throwing (which is totally unneccesary and furthermore dangerous).
And the holigans think they have the right to do this! This I cannot understand!
I've been near a demonstration warsite, and I was terrified. This is not expressing opinions, it's deadly violence! I felt protected by the police, and I thank them to be there.
As I said before, most demonstrators don't do this. A small subset of the demonstrators, having their own agenda do this. They pose a therat to the society. They threatens the democracy of expressing freely. Violence is never an acceptable way to express opinions!
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe 'hooligans' in this case were demonstrably the police - under-trained, over-hyped and out of control.
If a demonstration is peaceful, there is no need for police power. However, in some of demonstrations, involving certain issues, there are a higher risque of an escalating violence from a small subgroup of the demonstrators, not interested with the real issues but in fact seeking confrontation, a higher level of attention from police force must be under c ...[text shortened]... democracy of expressing freely. Violence is never an acceptable way to express opinions!
Even taking what you say in to account, what we can surely legitimately expect from the police, who are public servants, is a professionalism sadly and self-evidently lacking at the G20 protests.
I'm at a loss - if you know the background to this story - fully to understand what you have written, except as a distraction.
29 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFNowhere did I adress this G20 meeting in particular. I commented the demonstration hoolignans, using a peaceful demonstration for their own agenda, in general.
The 'hooligans' in this case were demonstrably the police - under-trained, over-hyped and out of control.
Even taking what you say in to account, what we can surely legitimately expect from the police, who are public servants, is a professionalism sadly and self-evidently lacking at the G20 protests.
I'm at a loss - if you know the background to this story - fully to understand what you have written, except as a distraction.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by shavixmirNope, you (and teletext - and who uses that these days?) were quite right. Here's The Guardian's take on it:
A report in Britain has stated that too many of the police policing the peaceful G20 demonstrations were inexperienced (okay... I added the peaceful part... it's called artistic license).
Now, what do I read on BBC teletekst (I don't know if it's findable on the web)? Let me quote for you:
"The MP's (edit: who wrote the report) said police must modif ...[text shortened]... inherently wrong.
Is this a sign of the times? Or is this a cock-up on teletekst?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/29/g20-police-protest-kettling-report
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by DrKFEven worse, the police seem to have sparked violent protests themselves!!!
Nope, you (and teletext - and who uses that these days?) were quite right. Here's The Guardian's take on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/29/g20-police-protest-kettling-report
"Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards.
Brake, who along with hundreds of others was corralled behind police lines near Bank tube station in the City of London on the day of the protests, says he was informed by people in the crowd that the men had been seen to throw bottles at the police and had encouraged others to do the same shortly before they passed through the cordon.
"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by howardgeeIndeed, puts the words of shills who say things like "if a demonstration is peaceful, there is no need for police power" in to a proper context, I think...
Even worse, the police seem to have sparked violent protests themselves!!!
"Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards.
Brake, who along with hundreds of others was corralled behind police lines near Bank tube station in the City of London ...[text shortened]... he cordon.
"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by DrKFI cannot ever understand the background of your G20 story, not if I don't have time to do a deep resurch inthe matter. Just relying on one source, from one side, doesn't give me background enough to understand the whold problem.
The 'hooligans' in this case were demonstrably the police - under-trained, over-hyped and out of control.
Even taking what you say in to account, what we can surely legitimately expect from the police, who are public servants, is a professionalism sadly and self-evidently lacking at the G20 protests.
I'm at a loss - if you know the background to this story - fully to understand what you have written, except as a distraction.
However, I understand fully (ish) understand the demonstration I witnessed, and fear for my life. I tell you the hooligans were s samll group of demonstrators, not having any other interest than to make chaos.
Therefore I answered the original posting quite generally, showing my experience of such a demonstration. Nothing more.
These trouble makers are anti democracy. They are contra productive to make the situation stable. And with a stable situation, there is no need for much police force.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd, in this case, the police were demonstrably anti-democratic, a 'small group... not having any other interest than to make chaos... counter-productive to stabilising the situation'.
I cannot ever understand the background of your G20 story, not if I don't have time to do a deep resurch inthe matter. Just relying on one source, from one side, doesn't give me background enough to understand the whold problem.
However, I understand fully (ish) understand the demonstration I witnessed, and fear for my life. I tell you the hooligans we ...[text shortened]... ake the situation stable. And with a stable situation, there is no need for much police force.
It can't have been nice, being caught up in a demonstration where a small group of protesters were out of control; how much worse when the police are dangerously out of control?
Again, I just don't see the point of giving your experience of a demonstration with a small number of protesters who went on the rampage other than by way of distraction from the issue at hand...
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by DrKFOkay, if you say so. But still, did the policemen, unexperienced or not, start the chaos? Or did the demonstrators do it?
And, in this case, the police were demonstrably anti-democratic, a 'small group... not having any other interest than to make chaos... counter-productive to stabilising the situation'.
It can't have been nice, being caught up in a demonstration where a small group of protesters were out of control; how much worse when the police are dangerously ...[text shortened]... rotesters who went on the rampage other than by way of distraction from the issue at hand...
I told you my experience. You have to take my word for it. If you don't see the point of it is because *you* don't know the background.
My point is that there are certain anti democratic groups infiltrated in an otherwise peaceful demonstration that creates the chaos, not the police force. If the policemen are not experienced enough, then the problem is higher in the police hierarcy underestimate the power needed for this demonstration in particular.
I given you my view. I don't think I have to add anything more to it.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasHey Fabian, like you I got caught up in a demonstration that went awry where a small group of protesters were out of control and goaded (and bottled) the police into violent response. In fact it happened to me twice. In the 1980s in the U.K. And it was 'Blag Flag' that were at the heart of the problems in both instances. But these experiences of mine don't mean I cannot understand what the OP is about and why people are outraged by these specific revelations.
Okay, if you say so. But still, did the policemen, unexperienced or not, start the chaos? Or did the demonstrators do it?
I told you my experience. You have to take my word for it. If you don't see the point of it is because *you* don't know the background.
My point is that there are certain anti democratic groups infiltrated in an otherwise peacefu ...[text shortened]... ation in particular.
I given you my view. I don't think I have to add anything more to it.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFIf I trow a stone at a policeman, and then the policeman in question come and get me. As i refuse areesting, I try to fight the policeman, and he punch me down with his baton. If I later whine in the media how cruel the police is, the I'm the one who make a fool out of myself.
Hey Fabian, like you I got caught up in a demonstration that went awry where a small group of protesters were out of control and goaded (and bottled) the police into violent response. In fact it happened to me twice. In the 1980s in the U.K. And it was 'Blag Flag' that were at the heart of the problems in both instances. But these experiences of mine don't mean ...[text shortened]... ot understand what the OP is about and why people are outraged by these specific revelations.
If a crowd do the same thing, then it's called a riot or something. Same action times x, same result time x. But now the medaia cares. But its the same thing, only in a bigger scale.
In our society the police can use neccesary violence to reach the goal. I have not that right. If I sart something, I have to take the consequences. The police has to take responsibility for any over-violence, violence not needed to get the wanted result.
In the demonstration that you witnessed, who started with criminal actions (i.e. violence)? In my case a smaller group among the demonstraters (those I call the hooligans) started the riot. The rest of demonstrants were peaceful.
29 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI assume this still has nothing to do with the OP?
If I trow a stone at a policeman, and then the policeman in question come and get me. As i refuse areesting, I try to fight the policeman, and he punch me down with his baton. If I later whine in the media how cruel the police is, the I'm the one who make a fool out of myself.
If a crowd do the same thing, then it's called a riot or something. Same act ...[text shortened]... traters (those I call the hooligans) started the riot. The rest of demonstrants were peaceful.