Students Rioting in London.

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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 .

Didn't you know; apparently it was all meant as a joke and hey, that it makes it okay.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Yes I was wondering that... Flyboy's 'hearing' is obviously better than Derek's vison...

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

I would say, much the same way that he assumes that more of them didn't do it.

You appear to be confusing his assumptions with your assumptions about an imaginary concession you assume he made.......

[Tezcatlipoca]

I found this particular "Kettling" image quite disturbing

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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?

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of how people react in public order situations.
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

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

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.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

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.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Matt D

I found this particular "Kettling" image quite disturbing

looks like the situation is about to boil over

---------- Post added at 07:22 ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of how people react in public order situations.
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.

I'm speechless .

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Derek

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.

Now you're for it....

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Matt D

I found this particular "Kettling" image quite disturbing

Very funny, though I find this "Kettling" image to be a little more humourous.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of how people react in public order situations.
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.

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?

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.

What are the guidelines?

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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?

I think there is a huge difference between an obvious joke and urging violent resistance. Still you have previous for being able to understand jokes so I'll let it slip for now.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

I saw a video clip of ONE officer out of several thousand not wearing shoulder epaulettes. I'll let you into a secret, not every item of clothing issued to police officers has numbers attached to it. Officers typically have two or three sets to be moved between jackets.

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

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.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Derek

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.

Come on now, that's really stretching the limits of probability! It's all in a days work for the police and why on earth would they need flame retardent gear when protesters were so considerately spraying around all that urine around??

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek

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.

Not that I disbelieve you, but could you tell me when and which select committee it was (or, if possible, could you post a link, it might save some time), so that I can have a look at the conclusions, it might give further insight.

I think there is a huge difference between an obvious joke and urging violent resistance. Still you have previous for being able to understand jokes so I'll let it slip for now.

Don't you think it is unprofessional to behave in this way?

I saw a video clip of ONE officer out of several thousand not wearing shoulder epaulettes. I'll let you into a secret, not every item of clothing issued to police officers has numbers attached to it. Officers typically have two or three sets to be moved between jackets.

Then the officer had plenty of opportunity to dress properly.

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.

Is that what happened? I suppose a look at the select committee's report will confirm this. But then, apparently every other single officer who was there, was able to comply with their obligations, all except this one single lone, perhaps, dare I say, "rogue" officer.

A quick question for you; does a police officer have an obligation to identify themselves, if asked by a member of the public?