Police Officer Cleared of G20 Assault

[Future17]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8597217.stm

Interesting one. A few key points include the case being heard without a jury and the victim not giving evidence due to her fear that the defence would raise her lifestyle as an issue.

[Hibs Class]

This case was heard at a magistrates court rather than crown court. I'm pretty sure that there aren't juries used at magistrates courts, so this wasn't an example of a jury being dispensed with (as has recently been done separately in a more serious case heard at crown court).

[Woody1985]

Whilst there were terrible instances at the G20 my thoughts on this particluar incident at the time was that the stupid deserved a slap. I still think that's the case.
I wonder what her 'lifestyle' issues are. No doubt the press will have the details in the near future.

[Future17]

This case was heard at a magistrates court rather than crown court. I'm pretty sure that there aren't juries used at magistrates courts, so this wasn't an example of a jury being dispensed with (as has recently been done separately in a more serious case heard at crown court).

Good point - hadn't noticed that.

Having a read about Magistrate's Courts, it appears they are used frequently in criminal cases, but something doesn't sit right with me that they would be used in the trial of an alleged police assault on a civilian.

I understand the reasons for the decision, but I find the quote that the office had "a mere 7 seconds" to decide what action to take, a bit disturbing. If a fully-trained police officer can't identify a weapon in 7 seconds when standing in baton-striking distance of the alleged aggressor, should they really be in that job/situation?

[EskbankHibby]

Whilst there were terrible instances at the G20 my thoughts on this particluar incident at the time was that the stupid deserved a slap. I still think that's the case.
I wonder what her 'lifestyle' issues are. No doubt the press will have the details in the near future.


Apparently has Max Clifford as her publicist.

[Killiehibbie]

This case was heard at a magistrates court rather than crown court. I'm pretty sure that there aren't juries used at magistrates courts, so this wasn't an example of a jury being dispensed with (as has recently been done separately in a more serious case heard at crown court).
I think the accused has the option to be tried in a magistrates court or go to crown court with a jury, depending on the severity of the charge.

[Marabou Stork]

Whilst there were terrible instances at the G20 my thoughts on this particluar incident at the time was that the stupid deserved a slap. I still think that's the case.
I wonder what her 'lifestyle' issues are. No doubt the press will have the details in the near future.

For what reason would you suggest that she 'deserved a slap'?

[Pretty Boy]

What ever happened to the other Policeman who attacked Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor, who died minutes later?

Was it ever proved if the attack was responsible for his death?

[ginger_rice]

Police Officer Cleared of Assault

Now there's a headline you don't see everyday :devil:

[hibbytam]

For what reason would you suggest that she 'deserved a slap'?

Being a protesting liberal hippy, that has the cheek to complain about unlawful imprisonment?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Whilst there were terrible instances at the G20 my thoughts on this particluar incident at the time was that the stupid deserved a slap. I still think that's the case.
I wonder what her 'lifestyle' issues are. No doubt the press will have the details in the near future.

Have to say, my views have changed. She was stupid, and I can accept the polis excuse, even though he did look like a Nazi storm trooper.

[hibsbollah]

What ever happened to the other Policeman who attacked Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor, who died minutes later?

Was it ever proved if the attack was responsible for his death?

Still with the PCC, 12 months after the event.

[Woody1985]

For what reason would you suggest that she 'deserved a slap'?

I'm not able to watch the video at work but IIRC she's the one shouting and screaming in the officers face. The only negative I can see is that it may have caused more crowd anger but she still deserved it IMO.

No one should ever be able to shout in someone's face like that, it's equally as disgusting as getting a slap in the mouth.

[Future17]

No one should ever be able to shout in someone's face like that, it's equally as disgusting as getting a slap in the mouth.

2 wrongs and all that? I agree her behaviour was ridiculous but don't we pay vast sums of money to train police to act appropriately in these situations?

[Woody1985]

2 wrongs and all that? I agree her behaviour was ridiculous but don't we pay vast sums of money to train police to act appropriately in these situations?

Yes, they are trained but we are all humans and by nature when faced with baying mobs in threatening situations some will naturally react. I bet she won't do it again. That's good enough for me.

Perhaps the protestors should realise that the Police aren't there for a jolly and they'd much rather be at home. No doubt some of them even supported the protests.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Police Officer Cleared of Assault



Now there's a headline you don't see everyday :devil:

:faf:


Yes, they are trained but we are all humans and by nature when faced with baying mobs in threatening situations some will naturally react. I bet she won't do it again. That's good enough for me.

Perhaps the protestors should realise that the Police aren't there for a jolly and they'd much rather be at home. No doubt some of them even supported the protests.

I agree with this. She was the one that advanced towards the police, she was asked to get back, but she kept going. If she had been able to breach their line or get into a fight with a policeman it would have given the others a cause to join in.

The need for such a large police presence is another thing. And I'd accept that could also have increased tension and got people excitable. The individual policeman was just doing his job.

[Future17]

Yes, they are trained but we are all humans and by nature when faced with baying mobs in threatening situations some will naturally react. I bet she won't do it again. That's good enough for me.

Perhaps the protestors should realise that the Police aren't there for a jolly and they'd much rather be at home. No doubt some of them even supported the protests.



I agree with this. She was the one that advanced towards the police, she was asked to get back, but she kept going. If she had been able to breach their line or get into a fight with a policeman it would have given the others a cause to join in.

The need for such a large police presence is another thing. And I'd accept that could also have increased tension and got people excitable. The individual policeman was just doing his job.

This is the bit I'm not convinced by. I don't believe it's his job to strike a civilian, protester or not, unless in self-defence.

I can understand if he had to react in the blink of an eye, but 7 seconds should be long enough for a trained police officer to evaluate a potential aggressor and identify whether or not she is actually carrying a weapon before taking action.

Did he actually fear for his safety or the safety of his colleagues? If not, his behaviour's unacceptable, but we can only guess what his motives were.

I'm not suggesting it was malicious in the sense of actually setting out to whack someone that day, or even a criminal offence, but more likely grounds for dismissal from the police service or at least re-assignment.

[Marabou Stork]

Yes, they are trained but we are all humans and by nature when faced with baying mobs in threatening situations some will naturally react. I bet she won't do it again. That's good enough for me.

Perhaps the protestors should realise that the Police aren't there for a jolly and they'd much rather be at home. No doubt some of them even supported the protests.

It was hardly a 'baying mob'. It was just a few ***** trying to get their puss on the news.

It was never a 'natural reaction' as well. A 'Natural Reaction' implies that there was a level of instinct involved, where in this instance the policeman has stood there for several seconds watching the situation before striking a woman who is finally moving away from him. Nothing instinctive about that, just another case of vindictive c***s joining the force and taking out the years of frustration caused by childhood bullying on innocent people.

[Phil D. Rolls]

This is the bit I'm not convinced by. I don't believe it's his job to strike a civilian, protester or not, unless in self-defence.

I can understand if he had to react in the blink of an eye, but 7 seconds should be long enough for a trained police officer to evaluate a potential aggressor and identify whether or not she is actually carrying a weapon before taking action.

Did he actually fear for his safety or the safety of his colleagues? If not, his behaviour's unacceptable, but we can only guess what his motives were.

I'm not suggesting it was malicious in the sense of actually setting out to whack someone that day, or even a criminal offence, but more likely grounds for dismissal from the police service or at least re-assignment.

I've got difficulty with it myself. I think the test is a) what guidelines are in place to advise the police when this behaviour is acceptable; and, b) did the situation meet the criteria?

[Jack]

She was going in to provoke a reaction from the police officer, any officer would have done, which she got. She must be terribly disappointed at the outcome which, I suspect, had nothing to do with the subject of the demonstration.

[IndieHibby]

This is the bit I'm not convinced by. I don't believe it's his job to strike a civilian, protester or not, unless in self-defence.

I can understand if he had to react in the blink of an eye, but 7 seconds should be long enough for a trained police officer to evaluate a potential aggressor and identify whether or not she is actually carrying a weapon before taking action.

Did he actually fear for his safety or the safety of his colleagues? If not, his behaviour's unacceptable, but we can only guess what his motives were.

I'm not suggesting it was malicious in the sense of actually setting out to whack someone that day, or even a criminal offence, but more likely grounds for dismissal from the police service or at least re-assignment.

You don't need a weapon when you outnumber your opponents....

[Woody1985]

It was hardly a 'baying mob'. It was just a few ***** trying to get their puss on the news.

It was never a 'natural reaction' as well. A 'Natural Reaction' implies that there was a level of instinct involved, where in this instance the policeman has stood there for several seconds watching the situation before striking a woman who is finally moving away from him. Nothing instinctive about that, just another case of vindictive c***s joining the force and taking out the years of frustration caused by childhood bullying on innocent people.

I was very careful not to say instant reaction, I meant natural reaction, if I were in that situation, most likely standing around for hours having hundreds of people throughout the day chant and shout in my face I would reach a point where someone would get smacked. The tension throughout the day has obviously got to the officer and he's had enough. Everyone has their breaking point.

She deserved it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I was very careful not to say instant reaction, I meant natural reaction, if I were in that situation, most likely standing around for hours having hundreds of people throughout the day chant and shout in my face I would reach a point where someone would get smacked. The tension throughout the day has obviously got to the officer and he's had enough. Everyone has their breaking point.

She deserved it.

The police are paid to show self control, but I agree - I have a certain amount of sympathy for the guy.

However if he has lost it in that situation then he should be assessed by the police as to whether he is up to the job.

[IndieHibby]

Some of you seem to be forgetting that the police are uniformed civilians and as such have the same rights in law as any other - thus, someone behaving in a anti-social manner toward a policeman is breaking the law in exactly the same way as if the were directing their abuse at someone in plain clothes.

Some people think the police are paid to take some of the abuse meted out to them by protetsers. They are not.

They are paid to enforce the law and keep the peace. They are the agents of the state monopoly on force and as such as expected to use thier discretion to decide when is and when is not an acceptable time to do it.

A police officer can act if he/she/it or others are being put in danger, as they perceive it.

A person screaming blue murder and charging a police line, with large numbers of people behind her may need to feel the sharp end of a baton - that may be all that is required to prevent a full blown riot.

And after all that, all she had to do was either:

a) Walk away
b) Follow the reasonable instructions of the officer.

Not too much to ask from a law-abiding citizen, is it?

[Woody1985]

The police are paid to show self control, but I agree - I have a certain amount of sympathy for the guy.

However if he has lost it in that situation then he should be assessed by the police as to whether he is up to the job.

I agree that he should be assessed but I think that a minor indiscretion can be accounted for given the situation.

He's not going to be in that position every day and if it does arise again then he could be deployed elsewhere.

Just for info, I've not really got any time for the Police because they are generally a bunch of arrogant ***** who aren't interested in what actually happened when assaults etc occur in general.

[Future17]

You don't need a weapon when you outnumber your opponents....

Even if those "opponents" have weapons? That's not what history tells us. Let's not forget, she wasn't armed....the police officer was.


Some of you seem to be forgetting that the police are uniformed civilians and as such have the same rights in law as any other - thus, someone behaving in a anti-social manner toward a policeman is breaking the law in exactly the same way as if the were directing their abuse at someone in plain clothes.

Some people think the police are paid to take some of the abuse meted out to them by protetsers. They are not.


I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that. :confused:

I'd argue that, although they have the same rights in law, they are selected, trained and paid, to conduct themselves in accordance with the law and, perhaps more importantly in this situation, in a manner which encourages adherence to the law by others.

Protester verbally abuses police officer, police officer strikes protester with weapon. Neither are acceptable, but was the latter justifiable in this scenario? I don't think so, but obviously this is just my opinion.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Even if those "opponents" have weapons? That's not what history tells us. Let's not forget, she wasn't armed....the police officer was.


Which makes her actions even more stupid. The polis are blocking your path (we've never actually been told where she was going) and he says get back or I'll hit you, then most people would take that in and move.

Only someone incredibly stupid (which tbf she does seem to be) would then decide to go against what he is saying. The other explanation is that she did want a slap for some reason.

You fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows.

[Future17]

Which makes her actions even more stupid. The polis are blocking your path (we've never actually been told where she was going) and he says get back or I'll hit you, then most people would take that in and move.

Only someone incredibly stupid (which tbf she does seem to be) would then decide to go against what he is saying. The other explanation is that she did want a slap for some reason.

You fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows.

Not disputing the fact that her actions are stupid, but deserving of the retaliation?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Not disputing the fact that her actions are stupid, but deserving of the retaliation?

I don't know, it looks nasty but if the situation was as serious as the officer said then maybe. What makes this difficult is that we didn't get her side of the story in court.

[Future17]

What ever happened to the other Policeman who attacked Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor, who died minutes later?

Was it ever proved if the attack was responsible for his death?


Still with the PCC, 12 months after the event.

12 months to the day:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8598213.stm

[Jack]

I don't know, it looks nasty but if the situation was as serious as the officer said then maybe. What makes this difficult is that we didn't get her side of the story in court.

If her side of the story was a positive one to tell I’m sure the prosecution would have been all too keen to have it told. I, personally, am left to assume her ‘lifestyle’ is rather unsavory and far from trustworthy. Perhaps even verging on the anarchist side of things???

[Phil D. Rolls]

If her side of the story was a positive one to tell I’m sure the prosecution would have been all too keen to have it told. I, personally, am left to assume her ‘lifestyle’ is rather unsavory and far from trustworthy. Perhaps even verging on the anarchist side of things???


The prosecution was so keen for her not to tell her story that - it's been alleged - threats were made to expose her lifestyle. Are you saying that this has leaked out?

[Killiehibbie]

The prosecution was so keen for her not to tell her story that - it's been alleged - threats were made to expose her lifestyle. Are you saying that this has leaked out?

I think I remember reading reading she was a smackhead from Brighton with quite a few convictions.

[Jack]

The prosecution was so keen for her not to tell her story that - it's been alleged - threats were made to expose her lifestyle. Are you saying that this has leaked out?

Nah, just that its very suspicious, or I'm very suspicious of these things.

[RyeSloan]

You go to a protest, shout at the polis, don't move when they tell you to and get a whack on the legs for your trouble....and this needed to go to court?!?

As a previous psoter said, I have no time for th epolice in general but in this instance I see nothing wrong in the officer showing who's in charge.

Oh and anyone who uses MAx Clifford as their publicist deserves to get absolutely nothing.....