I just wish this unpleasant rabble would stay away from the city centre and leave the protestors in peaceA third day in less than week for Bristol protesting now:
Bristol Kill the Bill protest: Riot police disperse protesters
Protesters involved in a sit-down demonstration are driven back by police in Bristol.www.bbc.co.uk
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
More police misbehaviour: are they trying to deliberately wind the public up?
- Thread starter yorkie
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
squizzler
Established Member
Anti-legislation protests are breaking out all over the country according to the guardian. The provocations at Bristol with accompanying fiasco of injuries that weren’t seems to have rather strengthened people’s resolve:
brad465
Established Member
Currently expecting lots of news about widespread protests this weekend, given there were plenty last weekend and today.
johnnychips
Established Member
Funny, before I read this, I made a conscious decision today that if there were any further date changes to the unlocking process, I would definitely join the protests. And I’m a nice old man.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,341
Possibly they want to get as many in as possible in while they're illegal for maximum impact?
brad465
Established Member
Protests continued today, with Manchester being the frontrunner for headlines this time where the tramlines were blocked, although they have been labelled as "largely peaceful":
Kill the Bill Manchester protest: 18 arrested after protesters block tram lines
But the Kill the Bill protest in Manchester is described as "largely peaceful" by police.
www.bbc.co.uk
It appears the police in Bristol are being ecnomical with the truth, the Observer article here https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...istol-demonstrations-police-bill-city-dissent explains.
- The police have admitted that the reports fo officers with fractures were untrue, simiarly no punctured lungs
- Hospitals designated for police casualties from the protect remain empty whilst those for protestors were full
Bristol has a population of van-dwellers (priced out of housing) which this bill will criminalise. Obviously the govt prefers people to pay the high rents of the rentier class so they can live a life or leisure on the back of a minimum-wage (if they are lucky) zero-hours wage slave. So no surprise they are pushing back.
This is scary stuff, the police lies and even attacking an accredited journalist who was there observing show how the police really behave when the Home Sec has an agenda.
This is the future unless we stand up to it. Remember, all our rights (right to be in a Trades Union and to strike, votes for men and women, basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, getting a decent wage, paid time off for holidays, paid sick pay, NHS, pensions) were won by protest over decades from the Chartists and Tolpuddle martyrs to the suffragists/ettes, the matchworkers and others.
We need a green new deal and decarbonisation, however this new bill will criminalise anyone who challenges the landed and wealthy people who want the status quo of high consumption, high rents/expensie housing and low wages to continue.
TPO
- The police have admitted that the reports fo officers with fractures were untrue, simiarly no punctured lungs
- Hospitals designated for police casualties from the protect remain empty whilst those for protestors were full
Bristol has a population of van-dwellers (priced out of housing) which this bill will criminalise. Obviously the govt prefers people to pay the high rents of the rentier class so they can live a life or leisure on the back of a minimum-wage (if they are lucky) zero-hours wage slave. So no surprise they are pushing back.
This is scary stuff, the police lies and even attacking an accredited journalist who was there observing show how the police really behave when the Home Sec has an agenda.
This is the future unless we stand up to it. Remember, all our rights (right to be in a Trades Union and to strike, votes for men and women, basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, getting a decent wage, paid time off for holidays, paid sick pay, NHS, pensions) were won by protest over decades from the Chartists and Tolpuddle martyrs to the suffragists/ettes, the matchworkers and others.
We need a green new deal and decarbonisation, however this new bill will criminalise anyone who challenges the landed and wealthy people who want the status quo of high consumption, high rents/expensie housing and low wages to continue.
TPO
There is much wrong with the bill, in particular the power it would grant the Home Secretary to define the limits of acceptability without scrutiny, but that article also demonstrates the other side of the coin - that those who protest believe that their cause is so important that their right to protest in whatever way they wish overrides those of others.
It is especially ironic when support for protests is being expressed by those who object to the premise that Covid is so important that action to override it is paramount, they are implicitly supporting the proposition that those protestors' cause(s) are so important that they override all other interests.
bengley
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,842
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
BlunanNation on Reddit said:
This is the sort of attitude we're up against if we don't choose to take the vaccine. There are people out there who seriously think this is acceptable...
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Just don't go on reddit then. It's a massive echo chamber full of idiots who would happily (as proven here) sign away their rights if it gets them internet brownie points.Reddit - Dive into anything
This is the sort of attitude we're up against if we don't choose to take the vaccine. There are people out there who seriously think this is acceptable...
More from Bristol, the police really do seem to be the instigtors of violence yet the Boris Broadcasting Company faithfully relays govt propaganda.
www.theguardian.com
TPO
The police have their version of the Bristol protests. Locals tell a different story
With claims of violent mobs wreaking havoc, the public risks being misled about how events really unfolded, says Matty Edwards, a journalist at the Bristol Cable
TPO
That's probably worth a thread on itself these days to be honest.
Did anyone watch the Andrew Marr show yesterday morning? Regardless of whether people find the extra marital activities of Boris newsworthy, it was cringeworthy to see the examination of newspaper front pages where a certain tabloid was placed at the bottom of the pile and maneouvered around to make sure it wasn't shown. Even when small parts of it appeared other papers were moved around to cover it over before cutting away from the segment after the penultimate newspaper so it couldn't be seen on air.
Portray our leader in a positive light at all costs, even if it means showing a clear bias on one of your most viewed political programmes.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
Sorry but that is false or at least, very misleading - at least unless lots of other changes happen too.
As the government (and Met Police) found out recently, in relation to protests being allegedly "banned" as a result of COVID legislation, the High Court was prepared to rule that despite what the COVID legislation said, various Human Rights legislation/obligations and treaties meant that the Coronavirus laws needed to be read in conjunction with the other legislation. The police, minutes before the hearing, accepted that, so the judge did not need to rule on that point.
In this case, the Bill is being unduly politicised in my view. Yes, on the face of it, it is a vast overreach of the state, however, that is simply because it is being read in isolation, when the law requires you to look at the bigger picture. The Home Secretary is still constrained by the likes of the Human Rights Act and other international obligations, and the judiciary would be perfectly capable of appropriately dealing with any law which infringes those obligations.
The real issue comes if:
1) The right to judicial review is removed (the government is currently trying it's best to make JR even more difficult, and is currently at consultation stage);
2) The Human Rights Act and other international obligations are repealed / amended (the government is also running a consultation about this at the moment too);
3) The police will simply follow what the Home Secretary says regardless of legality. Which is why despite the Met Police accepting their "blanket protest ban" was illegal at court, they still cracked down on them just hours later.
The Bill is therefore not a problem, so long as the safeguards in (1) and (2) exist. The REAL issue is that the government is attempting to water down those safeguards, in which case, the Bill is the least of your problems.
notlob.divad
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,609
For how long? This government has already shown that it has no intention of standing by its international obligations, even ones that it has itself agreed to. I have no doubt that the Human Rights Act is firmly within their crosshairs.
Edit: Sorry, I did notice that you touched on these points later. The point is that if this is allowed to go through on the grounds of relying on other pieces of legislation, then once they smash those bits of legislation up there is nothing to fall back on. Just like the swiss cheese model, the more slices there are the less chances all the holes line up. Blow a big hole in one of the slices then you leave your defences open when they decide to remove one of the layers.
Last edited:
For anyone that’s interested the HMICFRS have published a detailed report into the Met’s handling of the protest/vigil on Clapham Common. The overall finding is that the Met behaved proportionally and appropriately. The full report is here:
Last edited by a moderator:
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Who makes up the HMICFRS before I read it?
roversfan2001
Established Member
Is this not just a case of the police ruling that the police acted appropriately?
VauxhallandI
Established Member
That was what I was trying to find out, I believe the Police have layers above them of groups of Police or ex Police making judgements. Which is another sign to institutional bias; how it's allowed I'm not sure.
There are two separate issues here (and this was mentioned earlier on the forum, I think in this thread): one is whether the police acted appropriately in banning the original protest (doing so created an organisational vacuum which was - foreseeably - filled by more radical elements) and the other which is whether the officers behaved appropriately at the event.
I think the biggest failing was not allowing the event as originally planned to proceed which I don't think is really adequately addressed by this report, though passing reference is made to these decisions.
This part effectively admits that the Coronavirus legislation is incompatible with existing laws and places the police in an impossible position:
This is more evidence that the Coronavirus legislation has been detrimental in so many ways, including harming the reputation of the police and damaging trust between the public and police (and much more, beyond the scope of this discussion!)
No. It was HMICFRS. The independent police inspectorate. The actual author is a lawyer and the head of HMICFRS is Sir Tom Winsor who has never been a police officer and there is no love lost between him and the police (he lead a review of policing some years ago which hugely changed the terms of service of officers - for the worse).
In reply to Yorkie as the quote doesn’t seem to be working:
I quite agree that the Health Protection Regulations are an absolute mess and virtually impossible to police.
The report reveals the deeply held misapprehension of the law within the Met.
At a meeting with the vigil organisers at 7pm the night before, the Met was still of the view that the High Court decision earlier that afternoon had not changed anything.
The circumstances had been complicated by the Met's last minute admission of the key points regarding which a declaration was sought. Yet somehow this admission did not filter its way through to the Gold commanders and others that were holding discussions with the vigil organisers.
During the meeting, the Met put out a highly disingenuous press release which suggested those attending the vigil could be fined, arrested etc. It all went downhill from there - and yet the Inspectorate uses the same facts to come to the conclusion that the Met did nothing wrong...
It seems that they approached this from a highly adversarial position and were simply unwilling to consider the possibility they might be in the wrong. For example, even after the High Court hearing, they continued to claim that the absence of a defined reasonable excuse for protest in Tier 4 (the legal system under which the lockdown operated) meant it must automatically be illegal.
This is simply not the case, and yet they continued to use this as a basis for effectively pre-determining that they would not allow the protest to go ahead.
The rest is history, but certainly these events show the Met in a deservedly poor light. Sadly, the press is just picking up on the Inspectorate's conclusion rather than analysing the story for themselves.
I find it frankly disgusting that in the 21st Century the police takes the attitude that 'if in doubt, it must be illegal'. They are utterly two-faced in admitting that protest can be legal before a hearing, and yet afterwards claiming that it's illegal.
At a meeting with the vigil organisers at 7pm the night before, the Met was still of the view that the High Court decision earlier that afternoon had not changed anything.
The circumstances had been complicated by the Met's last minute admission of the key points regarding which a declaration was sought. Yet somehow this admission did not filter its way through to the Gold commanders and others that were holding discussions with the vigil organisers.
During the meeting, the Met put out a highly disingenuous press release which suggested those attending the vigil could be fined, arrested etc. It all went downhill from there - and yet the Inspectorate uses the same facts to come to the conclusion that the Met did nothing wrong...
It seems that they approached this from a highly adversarial position and were simply unwilling to consider the possibility they might be in the wrong. For example, even after the High Court hearing, they continued to claim that the absence of a defined reasonable excuse for protest in Tier 4 (the legal system under which the lockdown operated) meant it must automatically be illegal.
This is simply not the case, and yet they continued to use this as a basis for effectively pre-determining that they would not allow the protest to go ahead.
The rest is history, but certainly these events show the Met in a deservedly poor light. Sadly, the press is just picking up on the Inspectorate's conclusion rather than analysing the story for themselves.
I find it frankly disgusting that in the 21st Century the police takes the attitude that 'if in doubt, it must be illegal'. They are utterly two-faced in admitting that protest can be legal before a hearing, and yet afterwards claiming that it's illegal.
Last edited:
It’s more nuanced that though isn’t it? Indeed, from the section of the report where the HMICRS stated that the Gold Commander misunderstood the legal position:
“
However, it does not follow that the police response to the events planned for
13 March 2021, or to the events that occurred on the day, was wrong”
and
“The approach described above is entirely appropriate. It expressly considers protesters’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 and identifies the need to decide what is a necessary and proportionate policing response in the individual circumstances of the case”
(pages 27-28)
Bantamzen
Established Member
The HMICRS finding the Met's actions "appropriate" is like the the Argentinian Football Association saying "that was not handball from Maradona"....
It's not nuanced at all.
The report comes to the conclusion that Met's interpretation of the law was utterly wrong, but then suddenly changes tack to conclude that the Met's unlawful mishandling of the situation was OK because it was consistent with their previous unlawful actions. It is an absurd conclusion - also see here for further comment and explanation of some of the problems with the report.
The report also seems to bear no consideration whatsoever to the fact that, through their antagonistic attitude towards the organisers, the Met actively caused the gathering to be larger, less controlled and riskier. That said, outdoor gatherings are not very risky on the scale of things, and Covid risk is a pathetic distraction of an excuse for why they banned the vigil.
Something smells very fishy when the report identifies serious failings and misunderstandings by senior Met officers, and yet the Inspectorate tweets out that their report concludes the Met "acted appropriately".
Last edited:
It’s not a case of defending the indefensible or being an “apologist: an independent report conducted by a non-police officer (from an organisation that regularly criticised the police - for that is its job) has, to a large extent, vindicated the officers’ handling of the incident.
The report concludes what was actually really rather obvious from the start. Namely, there was an ambiguous legal position, the Met balanced competing considerations of Human Rights law and the Health Protection Regulations (though misunderstood the legal position), the engagement with the organisers took place (but could have been better), and the officers on the ground acted appropriately and in line with training, policy, and law.
The report concludes what was actually really rather obvious from the start. Namely, there was an ambiguous legal position, the Met balanced competing considerations of Human Rights law and the Health Protection Regulations (though misunderstood the legal position), the engagement with the organisers took place (but could have been better), and the officers on the ground acted appropriately and in line with training, policy, and law.
The fact that HMICRS produces a small proportion of reports that are critical of individual police actions doesn't mean they aren't apologists for the police, and particularly for current police management. They are dealing with masses of complaints against the police, so if they didn't agree with at least a few of them it would be very fishy indeed.
There's no doubt that the law as written is rubbish, but a visit to the court gave them the idea opportunity to clear that up, and instead they appear to have had their legal team muddy the waters. Even then, the message coming from the court was fairly clear and was comprehensively ignored. The actions by the officers on the ground sometimes seemed to be a little grim, but could reasonably be exonerated by an inquiry. The organisational failings of the Met at a senior management level are more questionable.
Wuffle
Member
It just proves that bad law not subject to scrutiny makes for bad decisions
Yes I agree.
What I saw looked completely disproportionate as a response to a peaceful vigil.
A lawyer saying that it was proportionate does not change my view or have I missed something?
What I saw reported from people there suggested that the nature of the vigil changed, which led to the change in policing approach.
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,499
The scenes on the ground are a distraction. People might have found the highlights ugly, particularly with the narrative built up around it, but it was physically handled largely by the book and carried out safely. People being arrested is rarely pretty. The question is whether it should have been Policed at all...
- Status