Unprovoked assault on woman by G20 police - do you recognise this officer?

[ukdobby 225]

Except that she wasn't doing any of those things. Another ill-informed and ignorant post.

 

Read post 132 to what kind of person she was.

Also I suppose you know exactly what she was doing.

Also I was not ill informed at all and aint ignorant pal.

Edited April 18, 2009 by ukdobby
word missed out

[Alien 10]

You have to ask what was going on with allowing Police Officers to wear epaullette covers to hide their identities.

 

It was a bitterly cold day and they were ordered to cover up?

 

The thread seems to be moving from what he did, to who/what she is. How convienient.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Alien

[norfolkngood 10]

Cant understand all the fuss about the "alleged" heavy hand tactics of the police.

 

G20 protestors went there for one simple reason and that was not to protest about cruelty to puppies.

 

In my opinion, and i have sympathy with the families of the deceased, but many went there just to cause trouble.

 

Motto is, cause trouble, get the punishment you deserve

[melthebell 864]

Cant understand all the fuss about the "alleged" heavy hand tactics of the police.

 

G20 protestors went there for one simple reason and that was not to protest about cruelty to puppies.

 

In my opinion, and i have sympathy with the families of the deceased, but many went there just to cause trouble.

 

Motto is, cause trouble, get the punishment you deserve

 

LOOOOOOOL

that must be the most random thing ive ever read?????????

yes i dont think cruelty to puppies was on the g20 agenda??

[norfolkngood 10]

It was'nt but it should have been, while they were down there campaigning against cruelty to trees or whatever else they were doing, they could have put puppies on the agenda.

 

rant over

[melthebell 864]

It was'nt but it should have been, while they were down there campaigning against cruelty to trees or whatever else they were doing, they could have put puppies on the agenda.

 

rant over

i dont think cruelty to trees was mentioned either?

 

 

[norfolkngood 10]

I know im jooking mel, although going to london to fight about G20 was a bit silly considering all the poverty going on ay the moment

[CockneyMafia 10]

I think the main demos were Financial Fools Day - "We won't pay for your crisis" - which was to point out that we understand what an astoundingly abysmal and greedy job the bankers have done and to point out the lunacy of bailing them out with public funds; and the Climate Camp outside the Carbon Exchange which was protesting that the methods of carbon trading proposed by the G20 are deeply flawed. Both issues are of crucial importance going forward.

 

Your ignorance shows how the state's violent tactics were successful. Rather than the stories exploring the actual issues, the discussion is about the state violence. "Constables, Jacqui says we can't have protests on the day of the G20, lets go beat them up. Hopefully they will retaliate and we can make out they were really nasty and we were scared".

 

Thanks for raising that point. Of course this thread isn't about whether you agree with the protests or not, it is about the police violence! We've got threads about bank bailouts already, though you are welcome to start a new thread if you'd like to discuss flaws in the carbon trading scheme.

 

On the contrary - I would argue this is merely coincidence. There were an infinite amount of people there and I would wager half of them were there for the day out and the other half just to vent their spleen over anything causing umbrage in their lives, even if it shows them up to be incredibly hypocritical. Whether or not this has anything to do with the OP is a moot point; discussion threads are ogranic by their very nature.

 

However, in acknowledgement of your comments, and with direct respect to the questions posed, unless we have undetaken roles as officers of the law and have experienced first hand the sight of a disgruntled mob and how it affects ones reasoning and behaviour, any opinion on here as to morality of the incident is just worthless speculation. As a footnote, it is also interesting to note that were it a football crowd being indiscriminately baton charged, the average commentator would no doubt say they deserved it.

[norfolkngood 10]

On the contrary - I would argue this is merely coincidence. There were an infinite amount of people there and I would wager half of them were there for the day out and the other half just to vent their spleen over anything causing umbrage in their lives, even if it shows them up to be incredibly hypocritical. Whether or not this has anything to do with the OP is a moot point; discussion threads are ogranic by their very nature.

 

However, in acknowledgement of your comments, and with direct respect to the questions posed, unless we have undetaken roles as officers of the law and have experienced first hand the sight of a disgruntled mob and how it affects ones reasoning and behaviour, any opinion on here as to morality of the incident is just worthless speculation. As a footnote, it is also interesting to note that were it a football crowd being indiscriminately baton charged, the average commentator would no doubt say they deserved it.

 

get to point pal and just give us your thoughts

[mh01 10]

i would hope that the officers involved get the same punishment as a member of the public would get, if they are found guilty. lets see if they like prison, they deserve it from the pictures iv seen, thats my opinion & a hell of a lot of others opinion.

[TeaFan 10]

Read post 132 to what kind of person she was.

Also I suppose you know exactly what she was doing.

Also I was not ill informed at all and aint ignorant pal.

 

You said

 

If you mob up and abuse,smash windows damage property,the police are there to stop them

 

But she wasn't doing any of those things. She was at the vigil protesting against Ian Tomlinson's death. Get it right.

 

And it's irrelevant what kind of person she is. In law, the police need certain reasons to be able to assault people and for that to be lawful. Not liking someone's lifestyle doesn't count.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Motto is, cause trouble, get the punishment you deserve

 

Shouldn't the courts decide what the punishment should be?