Woman Grabbed round the Neck by Police Officers
- Thread starter RLF
- Start date
Flicker
Well-Known Member
Oh nice, good to see the Stazi is still alive and well in Kent...
GinaB
Well-Known Member
Ah good old police brutality in force
the watcher
Well-Known Member
D'ya think?
You don't think the fact that they were detained for 4 days without charge is significant - when most people would be charged or released before 24 hours were up - kind of suggests there may have been other issues .....
You don't think the fact that they were detained for 4 days without charge is significant - when most people would be charged or released before 24 hours were up - kind of suggests there may have been other issues .....
woolly
Well-Known Member
Or possibly a contravention of PACE codes of conduct and PACE itself? I am not sufficiently well versed in the anti terrorism Act but if as purported, all she did was ask for identification, and they reacted like that, then a good lawyer will have them for breakfast.
BBH
Well-Known Member
Good way to make some money eh. Her friends camera at the ready ??? Can't stand people like this, they deliberately provoke in difficult circumstances and then react with horror when they get a reaction
I think the police have a difficult enough job without the bored housewife brigade adding to it. They should go home and bake scones or something.
I think the police have a difficult enough job without the bored housewife brigade adding to it. They should go home and bake scones or something.
woolly
Well-Known Member
Errmmm a little bit of a generalisation LHS !!!! So nobody has the right of freedom of speech or power to protest? What evidence do you have of deliberate provocation?
Merlotmonster
Well-Known Member
Another fine piece of journalism by the daily Fail...
No one knows what went on before hand and to judge the police on a snapshot of video is harsh. I would prefer to have the full facts before passing judgement. No doubt the truth will come out in the end.
No one knows what went on before hand and to judge the police on a snapshot of video is harsh. I would prefer to have the full facts before passing judgement. No doubt the truth will come out in the end.
woolly
Well-Known Member
I agree merlot!!!! but likewise no one has the right to condemn the women until all facts known!
the watcher
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Or possibly a contravention of PACE codes of conduct and PACE itself? I am not sufficiently well versed in the anti terrorism Act but if as purported, all she did was ask for identification, and they reacted like that, then a good lawyer will have them for breakfast.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot think of anybody being asked to authorise detention beyond 24 hours who would do so without there being an iron clad reason - as you say it would be such a serious breach of PACE as to be a job loser.
Or possibly a contravention of PACE codes of conduct and PACE itself? I am not sufficiently well versed in the anti terrorism Act but if as purported, all she did was ask for identification, and they reacted like that, then a good lawyer will have them for breakfast.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot think of anybody being asked to authorise detention beyond 24 hours who would do so without there being an iron clad reason - as you say it would be such a serious breach of PACE as to be a job loser.
Silverspring
Well-Known Member
One side of the story as reported by the Daily Wail...wouldn't believe a f**ing word of it.
The police did a great job at that protest, I'd have beaten the crap out of some of them. It should have been a peaceful protest but some people where there just to cause trouble to get on the news.
The police did a great job at that protest, I'd have beaten the crap out of some of them. It should have been a peaceful protest but some people where there just to cause trouble to get on the news.
woolly
Well-Known Member
like the bloke that was killed????
be fair to both sides!
Mother-hen... I tend to agree with you! It would be beyond a rookie mistake and is highly supsicious. I am just exercising my brain having sat a law exam with a very similar situation (you know how they love doing PACE in exams and public protest) However I think the anti terrorism Act could be open to a fair amout of abuse.... but as you say, an iron clad reason would be needed!
be fair to both sides!
Mother-hen... I tend to agree with you! It would be beyond a rookie mistake and is highly supsicious. I am just exercising my brain having sat a law exam with a very similar situation (you know how they love doing PACE in exams and public protest) However I think the anti terrorism Act could be open to a fair amout of abuse.... but as you say, an iron clad reason would be needed!
FinnishLapphund
There's no cow on the ice
Personally I believe that police officers can do wrong, just like doctors and the rest of us, they're just humans. However if they have or haven't in this case, I don't know but I tend to get suspicious when a group of people claiming to be normal and not out to cause problem just happen to have to dress up in similar hooded jackets/hoodies before their protest begins...
A1fie
Well-Known Member
. . . . . . . . . . just a minor point - if the woman was arrested under anti terror laws PACE does not apply.
woolly
Well-Known Member
I know A1fiebut not knowing, if she was, went for bog standard PACE. I have my Blackstone's Statutes for public law and human rights and need to have a ferret... I appreciate the terrorism side of things operate under a seperate section.
(Thankfully in the exam they did not combine the 2 in one question!!!)
Was trying to think of both situations and probably expressed it badly!
(Thankfully in the exam they did not combine the 2 in one question!!!)
Was trying to think of both situations and probably expressed it badly!
the watcher
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
. . . . . . . . . . just a minor point - if the woman was arrested under anti terror laws PACE does not apply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very true - but what a sledgehammer to crack a nut that would be in the circumstances, unless she was suspected of other offences...although that would tend to add relevance to the officer declining to identify himself
. . . . . . . . . . just a minor point - if the woman was arrested under anti terror laws PACE does not apply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very true - but what a sledgehammer to crack a nut that would be in the circumstances, unless she was suspected of other offences...although that would tend to add relevance to the officer declining to identify himself
gg68
Well-Known Member
I think there are a few cops who have lost control of themselves. Do you remember the hunting pros outside the House of Commons who rattled the fence and got a bash on the head with a truncheon and no charges were brought against the police. Where are we going? Slippery slope?
A1fie
Well-Known Member
Mother Hen - totally agree, that's the police for you!
Woolly - Good luck ploughing through Blackstones - I think it's impenatrable and always prefer Archbold!
and hope your exams went well.
Woolly - Good luck ploughing through Blackstones - I think it's impenatrable and always prefer Archbold!
and hope your exams went well.
{51248}
...
Why were their ID numbers not being displayed ? I thought all police had to have their number displayed on their uniform. I cant see a single such number in any of these photos. And also, since when was holding someone's throat a recognised safe restraint method ?
the watcher
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Why were their ID numbers not being displayed ? I thought all police had to have their number displayed on their uniform. I cant see a single such number in any of these photos. And also, since when was holding someone's throat a recognised safe restraint method ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Usually yes, they do have to be displayed - but there is a specific exclusion in anti terrorism legislation that allows officers not to disclose identification. Without knowing what offence this woman was arrested for, or the orders and authorities granted for policing the event on the day it is impossible to make a judgement on so little information.
Not that these factors would prevent the press having a field day because they are in the business of selling papers, not balanced factual reporting, sadly.
Why were their ID numbers not being displayed ? I thought all police had to have their number displayed on their uniform. I cant see a single such number in any of these photos. And also, since when was holding someone's throat a recognised safe restraint method ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Usually yes, they do have to be displayed - but there is a specific exclusion in anti terrorism legislation that allows officers not to disclose identification. Without knowing what offence this woman was arrested for, or the orders and authorities granted for policing the event on the day it is impossible to make a judgement on so little information.
Not that these factors would prevent the press having a field day because they are in the business of selling papers, not balanced factual reporting, sadly.
mtj
Well-Known Member
the story was also front page on the Guardian. they stated that the women concerned were known agitators.
my understanding is that the Police are required to show there numbers.
the photos obviously just show one moment of the incident, but it does indicate an authoritarian attitude to protest.
my understanding is that the Police are required to show there numbers.
the photos obviously just show one moment of the incident, but it does indicate an authoritarian attitude to protest.
woolly
Well-Known Member
Ohhh A1fie... thanks so much for the good luck vibes... much needed! I desperately want to be a barrister but my chances of being one are quite a bit less than me being a pole dancing astronaut!!! Archbold's is the preferred Barristers tipple but a tad out of my price range! One day *sigh* one day! I have Blackstone's as that is the only guide allowed in exams..unmarked in anyway!
the watcher
Well-Known Member
You are allowed a Blackstones in exams??
Lightweight!
Try being at the sharp end of law enforcement, no Blackstones to refer to when you are making decisions on the hoof or in the exams
Lightweight!
Try being at the sharp end of law enforcement, no Blackstones to refer to when you are making decisions on the hoof or in the exams
woolly
Well-Known Member
Lol!!!! we are indeed... not as much use as you think and to be honest, you waste so much time trying to look up what you want. You can't mark the pages, can't turn over the corners, no marks whatsoever. One girl had a dead fly that had been squashed between the pages and a tea cup mark and it all has to be declared. They check each one in the exam hall so now we have to be seated ages before as can you imgaing checking over 90 Blackstone's!!!???
I want to be that person Mother hen!!! it worries me...Kudos to all who can !
I want to be that person Mother hen!!! it worries me...Kudos to all who can !
{51248}
...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why were their ID numbers not being displayed ? I thought all police had to have their number displayed on their uniform. I cant see a single such number in any of these photos. And also, since when was holding someone's throat a recognised safe restraint method ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Usually yes, they do have to be displayed - but there is a specific exclusion in anti terrorism legislation that allows officers not to disclose identification. Without knowing what offence this woman was arrested for, or the orders and authorities granted for policing the event on the day it is impossible to make a judgement on so little information.
Not that these factors would prevent the press having a field day because they are in the business of selling papers, not balanced factual reporting, sadly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, I dont see the connection between climate protest (which is what the event was described as in the press) and anti terrorism legislation. I also dont see why the officers used a choke hold; surely they are trained in proper restraint methods.
[ QUOTE ]
Why were their ID numbers not being displayed ? I thought all police had to have their number displayed on their uniform. I cant see a single such number in any of these photos. And also, since when was holding someone's throat a recognised safe restraint method ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Usually yes, they do have to be displayed - but there is a specific exclusion in anti terrorism legislation that allows officers not to disclose identification. Without knowing what offence this woman was arrested for, or the orders and authorities granted for policing the event on the day it is impossible to make a judgement on so little information.
Not that these factors would prevent the press having a field day because they are in the business of selling papers, not balanced factual reporting, sadly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, I dont see the connection between climate protest (which is what the event was described as in the press) and anti terrorism legislation. I also dont see why the officers used a choke hold; surely they are trained in proper restraint methods.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
pakkasham - I don't see the connection either - just pointing out that in some circumstances officers are not required to identify themselves, in htese circumstances different rules apply to detention too.
As for 'choke holds' if that is what it was, I don't believe they are in the manual - although in real life threatening situations anything goes, of course.
As for 'choke holds' if that is what it was, I don't believe they are in the manual - although in real life threatening situations anything goes, of course.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
D'ya think?
You don't think the fact that they were detained for 4 days without charge is significant - when most people would be charged or released before 24 hours were up - kind of suggests there may have been other issues .....
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah yeah of course anyone who is detained for 4 days without charge must be guilty of something.
Probably best just to lock em up.
No smoke without fire!
D'ya think?
You don't think the fact that they were detained for 4 days without charge is significant - when most people would be charged or released before 24 hours were up - kind of suggests there may have been other issues .....
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah yeah of course anyone who is detained for 4 days without charge must be guilty of something.
Probably best just to lock em up.
No smoke without fire!