Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35141268)

so sparkles found the clip amusing -but no one has mentioned that the police on horse back deliberately charged at students which could have resulted in death or terrible injury .

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35141398)

How can he concede a number you made up...... (he said 99% of the cops he saw, not 99% of the cops there).

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35141398)

How can he concede a number you made up...... (he said 99% of the cops he saw, not 99% of the cops there).

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35141395)

Sorry, but I hold that with as much credibility as there being a Father Christmas. She could have easily changed her epaulettes when she changed her jacket. Are you really expecting us to believe she was the only one?

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35141395)

Is that how the police are trained to move someone along, who is in a wheelchair? What is the correct and authorised way to move someone in wheelchair?

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35141395)

What makes it okay because they were "off-duty?"

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35141395)

But you have already conceded that at least fifty of them did hide their identification.

Originally Posted by Matt D (Post 35141450)

I found this particular "Kettling" image quite disturbing :(

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35141463)

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of how people react in public order situations. :rolleyes:
If the commons select committee accepted that reason then I'll accept it as well. During that evidence it stated she was the only example, surely with the professional protestors itching to show that all cops are thugs then there would be more than one example.



It all depends on the circumstances. As I mentioned previously if it was me having to move a hostile, apparently disabled person, who wasn't being compliant then I'd separate them from their chair as well.



Is it official Police guidelines? Nope, it's some people with a very stressful job letting off steam. They deal with stuff professionally on-duty but off duty as long as it's not illegal have a life as well.
I've been to some outrageous comedy gigs with jokes that make you wince in horror, making fun of some things you really should not laugh at. It doesn't mean I take that flippantness into work with me.



Nope. I gave a hypothetical percentage and you leaped on it. As I've said only one video or photo has come to light, surely if there were more it would be out in public with the five second video clips that are enough for some people to make their minds up.

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35141463)

I've been to some outrageous comedy gigs with jokes that make you wince in horror, making fun of some things you really should not laugh at. It doesn't mean I take that flippantness into work with me.

Originally Posted by Matt D (Post 35141450)

I found this particular "Kettling" image quite disturbing :(

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35141463)

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of how people react in public order situations. :rolleyes:
If the commons select committee accepted that reason then I'll accept it as well. During that evidence it stated she was the only example, surely with the professional protestors itching to show that all cops are thugs then there would be more than one example.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35141556)

What select committee, I wasn't aware of any evidence given to a select committee yet, regarding this, or any other police officer, hiding their identity. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35141556)

So, when it comes to someone writing a blog about his political activities, it is incitement to violent resistance. But when "off-duty" police officers (you have no idea if they were off-duty or not, when they were writing their posts) suggesting they should be allowed to blow the brains out of protesters, that's is just "blowing off steam." Can't you see the absurdity in that? Would it ever be seen as bringing the name of the force into disrepute?

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 35141556)

So, you didn't see any officers hiding their identity?

I don't think it matters how long the video clips are for, this officer still hid their shoulder number. Using the, "I left it on my other jacket" excuse, is not an acceptable reason, especially in light of what happened at the G20 protests.

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35141581)

If the order was given to change quickly from hi-viz to flame retardant than I think it's entirely possible an officer might not switch their numbers over if they are distracted by petrol bombs being chucked in their general direction by some jolly students.

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35141581)

If the order was given to change quickly from hi-viz to flame retardant than I think it's entirely possible an officer might not switch their numbers over if they are distracted by petrol bombs being chucked in their general direction by some jolly students.

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35141581)

I think you've missed a great deal. There was evidence given to a Parliament committee a few days after the riot where the ONE officer missing shoulder numbers was explained and accepted.