Please have a gander at this video from the Grauniad of two 'women' getting arrested for the heinous crime of asking a policeman for his collar number.
I would particularly like to hear from serving officers; would you call this a proportionate use of force? Would you have deployed the taser if available? Is grabbing her by the throat to show her face to the camera an "approved home office technique"? Is four days in prison (before being released without charge) par for the course when asking an on-duty officer without visible ID for his/her collar number?
I know the police often have to deal with violent, drunken, drugged-up and downright dangerous people, and in which case force must be used, sometimes a lot of it. But here? Come on lads and lasses...
THIS is the kind of thing that causes people to lose trust, faith, and respect for the police. A coked-up thug kicking off at 2am? Go for it. Two hippy women pestering you for your number? Nah, sorry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I must first express my disgust at unacceptable behaviour on the part of W Yorks police. Here we see uniforms making the only difference between 'working for the good of the community' and good old fashioned, psychopathic violence. Unfortunately, such incidents now arise with distressing regularity.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, congratulations on your launch. It was generous to credit Coppersblog with an idea you must have toyed with long before the terminal stages of the police blog. An interesting list of pseudonyms is still in the unraveling process although I am informed that a founding member, Stuart Davidson of Edmonton Police, has recently disassociated himself with Coppersblog. I haven't tasted pork for years - but may by token celebration, lapse into a ham sandwich should Officer Davidson find himself with the moral obligation to name his legatees.
Last but not least, Hibbo, I have always been an avid supporter of good policing. Sad and significant moments arise when citizens find themselves justifying support for what good remains.
Dr M T Gray
Concern4Justice
Blimey, my first comment and it's from none other than Melv himself!
ReplyDeleteI really hope some of the coppers come on here and discuss this incident. I'm not sure if the coppersblogteam noticed that I had not said anything about the arrest video in Nottingham; that guy appeared to be drunk and violent, and it is (to me) possible to justify the level of force used. These two women though, I cannot see how on earth that behaviour can be justified.
Yes, I watched the video of two British taxpayers being ILLEGALLY arrested on trumped-up charges for merely requesting the policeman's number. I can only recommend these British coppers read a little history on the police-state mentality of former dictatorships where the rule of law is considered a nuisance.
ReplyDeleteHistory is repeating itself here, and if the contents of this video are allowed to escape notice of the proper governing police body, then the game is lost.
That type of brutal force should be reserved for violent criminals when necessary and not for ordinary people people lawfully asking the "public servants" to identify themselves.
Do these coppers not realize how much damage they've done to their public image after thousands of people view this video?
It's time they started looking for another line of work.
That police would enter your site for a purpose other than inflicting scorn and abuse we both suffered on Coppersblog, is a noble but vain hope. If I may make the suggestion, the justice of turning the tables on police blogging could be facilitated by mirroring Coppersblog and opening parallel discussion otherwise denied citizens.
ReplyDeleteA few rogues establishing themselves as the face of British Police, have created a PR nightmare. Unwittingly, their own anonymous topics and comments have placed a lazy, ineffective and loutish nature in the public arena. Some police actions taken against the innocent and captured on video, fill me with as much disgust as subsequent police conspiracies to portray them differently. It will not be difficult to set a much higher standard, Hibbo. I advocate good principles for your blog which should include freedom from obscenities and bigotry. A highly contrasting ethic will delight discerning visitors.
Dr M T Gray
Concern4Justice
As a serving police officer i am keen to see both sides of the story, hence why I have visited this blog. I have viewed the footage, no doubt as usual this is not all the footage, just what is convenient to be shown, and so any comments cannot be based on the full facts.
ReplyDeleteMy first comments are that the officers should have given their collar numbers if they were not being worn ( which of course they should have been!). Of course we cannot actually see if the officer did or did not have their numbers displayed, but lets presume they did not. Secondly no-one would be arrested for asking for an officers collar number or videoing them, they were arrested for obstructing the officers, again the video to me does not show any real obstructing that could not be worked around but then we hav'nt seen everything that happened or if there has been some editing of the footage to show the police in a bad light. So, possibly, arresting at that stage could have been an over reaction.
The next part though is the use of force on arrest. Clearly neither women are compliant but the camera seems to conveniently not be pointing in the right direction all of the time to capture their behaviour. One is kicking out and has to be fast wrapped. Just because they are women, mothers, etc.. does not mean that they cannot injure someone else or themselves.
Finally, these are not innocent members of the public. These are professional protestors ( trouble makers) who do not like police doing their job and do all they can to prevent them. They state that they do not like police intelligence officers going to these camps and gathering intelligence, videoing etc.. and yet they are doing exactly the same themselves! I would also argue that they are deliberately trying to hide their faces and identity. I would also note how they are nicely scrubbed up and presented as sweet innocent women for the after the event interviews, a common tactic for these kind of anti-authority serial complainers.
So, in summary then, the arrests may not have been necessary but lets see the entire footage involving these two first but the use of force and restraint was low level and probably justified.
Perhaps the best way to deal with these people is for the DWP to attend these camps and stop all the benefits of those clearly not actively seeking work or those who are clearly suddenly healthy enough to work!
It will be interesting to see what the IPCC make of this one!
Anon 10:50,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts.
I have rewatched the video, and I can't see any "obstruction" going on, and I don't think it's selective editing as the first woman is being dragged away as the other one is still heard asking for the collar number.
Yes, she is seen trying to resist the cuffs a bit, so some force is needed here.
However, once she is bound and cuffed, the officer standing on the edge of her foot? And then lifting her head to the camera via her windpipe?
Honest question: If a certain amount of force is deemed acceptable to effect an arrest, but it then transpires that the arrest itself was not justified, does that have any bearing on whether the force used was justified (in any following investigation)?
I agree, not sure exactly what the obstruction is, may be something to do with the face coverings ( under some circumstances police can demand the removal of face coverings and a refusal to do this could amount to obstruction)but this is purely speculation and I'm only thinking it might be this because one of the women then had her face lifted to the camera. Like I said, I do not think we have the full story here.
ReplyDeleteWith regards lifting her head again I'm not sure of the entire necessity to do that in the field, so to speak. She was under arrest by that point and while we can take photos using force if necessary it is better done at the police station ( by which time she may have calmed and allowed this to be done). Sometimes where there are multiple arrests with seperate escort teams images are taken at the scene so that suspect and arresting officer can be linked later on as it often gets confusing with people asking who nicked who! With regards how it was done then again that may amount to being reasonable, but the question is still was it necessary? Grabbing anyone around the neck is unquestionably dangerous, I've only really seen it done when someone is exhibiting extreme violence and has to be restrained ( used as a last resort really) or to prevent someone swallowing drugs etc..( again that would be for their own safety).
The standing on the edge of her foot or even across her foot is reasonable to prevent her from kicking out - you see her kick out when she gets her foot free. It is safer to stand on the feet, using reasonable pressure, than to use hands as you are putting your face at foot level and ( when they are sittng up) head level. You also then have your hands free to control the upper body. This was a lower level of control and restraint than having her forced face down into the ground and fast wrapped, which is the level they eventually had to escalate to.
The last point you raise is an interesting one and I am not certain of the answer. I believe that even if the arrest turns out to be unlawful or not justified then the use of force could still be legal / justified. My thinking is that just because an arrest turns out to be unlawful it should not mean that the person being arrested can kick off and offences such as assault police, assault with intent to resist arrest etc.. should still stand. Remember also that there does not have to be an arrest for force to be used, the only question is whether that force was reasonable in the circumstances and the general test there is whether under the circumstances as interpreted by the officers at the time the force was reasonable - e.g if you are told someone has a knife and they are not compliant then you could justify a high level of force to deal with them even if it turns out that the do not have a knife. Having said all that, if the police are not acting withing their duty / powers then reasonable force can be used in self-defence.
Another way to look at this was if the arrest was unlawful then why did the protestors kick off like that? The sensible thing to do is to go along with the arrest peacefully then sue for / complain about wrongful arrest afterwards. Unfortunately I believe that again the police have played into the hands of these people and that this was exactly what they wanted, a possibly dodgy arrest with footage of two poor women being manhandled - makes great press footage!
One further point, why did this footage only get released nearly 1 year after the event? COuld it be that certain people out there hang on to stuff like this so they can trickle it out to the media and so ensure their particular beef with authority remains in the headlines. I would also assume that any investigation / complaint would be well underway or even completed by now..
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm got mixed feelings about FITWatch. I agree whole heartedly with their decision to film the police at protests - I'm sorry to say I think it is necessary now that we should have some means of some members of the police accountable for some of their actions.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like being filmed, then I'm glad you understand. Perfectly law abiding protestors don't like being filmed either. In filming you of course, the FitWatch members have done nothing wrong. As a profession, get over it.
Now, unfortunately I don't think FITWatch are the angels they pretend to be either - clearly any actual physical acts to prevent the police from making an arrest is WELL BEYOND ACCEPTABLE. As you suggest, go quietly and sue is the best policy...
I'm also not wild about the way they seem to delight in identifying specific officers on their blog. Two wrongs don't make a right.
On the whole though, if I were at a demonstration I would have no qualms about pointing my own camera at officers - because it's my right to do so.
Martin.
It should also be noted that not all officers are part of the problem in policing, some are doing stirling work, and are unfortunately going to get tarred with the same brush. It would be nice if we could bear that in mind here...
ReplyDeleteThis is the key issue here, and I think a lot of coppers don't quite get it: Law abiding plebs (members of the public, or MOPs as plod like to call us) DO NOT have a problem with the police using force to arrest violent thugs. The police are pretty much the only people who are allowed to use violent force in their day-to-day lives, and get paid for it. (Please don't mention common law or owt like that; anyone who's tried to defend themselves against an attacker or intruder, or even read a newspaper knows full well that you will be absolutely battered by the law for doing so) Because of that, when we see the police abusing this privilege, people are not too happy.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why the police have such a problem with the media reporting on their antics, as us plebs are often told; "nothing to fear, nothing to hide".
So coppers: by all means, by heavy with the thugs, but don't expect carte blanch on violence.
I don't have a problem with police using force when they have to either - but who makes that determination. It has to be the officer - there is no alternative.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the police are in for a rough time of it now that so many of us routinely carry video recording equipment in our pockets - and in the cases where it's used to good effect, they DESERVE a rough time. We (the law abiding public) are their masters, not the other way about...
But it's a two way contract - perhaps it would be nice to have a thread on how we, as "MOPs", could help the police?
Martin.
Good idea Martin, as a decent bloke, I really want to know what the police would like us to do to help them.
ReplyDeleteSee my latest post...