Re: Kettling

Ret. wrote:
Joe Lee wrote:
Ret. wrote:
Joe Lee wrote:
Ret. wrote:
Joe Lee wrote:
Ret. wrote:
Joe Lee wrote:

You have *totally* overlooked the point that Steve was making,
namely that the risk to personal safety always take precedence
over the risks of damage to property - or rather it should do -
& kettling turns this long accepted premis on it's head.

I don't believe that it does.

Of course it does, By your OWN argument it does !! Do you even
need that explaining to you ?

But you have not shown that kettling is a risk to personal safety
have you?

I believe so yes. I have made the comparison with Hillsborough &
asked what the Police have learned about crowd control sine then,
your answer (below) is that they have "learned from experience" but
you appear to be unable to demonstrate any single practical measure
they have implemented to prevent another tragedy or further loss of
life when Policing crowds. Indeed it's actually worse than that in
that the Met. have now introduced this tactic of *deliberately*
forcing crowgs of people into a confined area & then denying their
attempt to escape.
Also, on 26th April "johnmids2006" in respect of kettling wrote "I
would say that it is impossible to pen people in in circumstances
like that without running the risk of a disaster - and yes, I have
worked with building safety issues.
Denis O'Connor was reported to have made various comments about
this. My guess is that possible disaster risks are being raised at
a high level."
I note you didn't reply to that post. My guess is that you found it
inconvenient to discuss safety issues with someone who, unlike you,
clearly does know what they are talking about in relation to safety matters. And while possible disaster may be being discussed
at high level, if your attitude is representative of Police as a
whole, it's clear they haven't percolated down to low level yet.

You are not the only one to raise the 'safety' issue - and I *have*
responded to it. The difference between the Hillsborough tragedy and
kettling is dramatic. At Hillsborough, vast crowds were attempting
to force their way into a finite space, bounded by metal fencing,
when it was already full to capacity. In kettling, a finite group
are enclosed in a finite space bounded by lines of human beings who
can easily and quickly move back, or step aside, at any sign of a
Hillsborough type crush. Your comparison between Hillsborough and
kettling just does not hold water I'm afraid.

Almost every single statement within that paragraph is totally &
utterly false & I believe that you know it is.

Not so - it is entirely correct.

As a copper of 30
Years, that you refuse to recognise what happened at hillsborough 20
Years ago is an absolute disgrace. Shame on you for attempting to
place all the blame on the fans. Shame on you !!


I'm not placing the blame on the fans - and I'm deliberately avoiding
getting into a debate about what occurred at Hillsborough.

Good, In that case I will hold you yo your word & delete all of your following attepts to justify your opinion of what took place.

<big snip>

They have learned from experience and their tactics at G20 proved
extremely effective in preventing the sort of mayhem that occurred
at previous similar demonstrations. There was little trouble, very
little criminal damage, and (apart from Tomlinson) no serious
injuries. Now what more do you want?

See above re "experience" & your comments have not addressed the
safety issues!

The police have addressed the safety issue - and, as with any police
tactic today, kettling will have been subject to a full Health &
Safety risk assessment. That is now a legal requirement, but you are
obviously not aware of that.

No response to that either?

I made mo response because it's nothing more thsn what I assumed they would do, given that their is a legal liability upon them so to do. Does that response satify you now ?


Take the Fire Service with a shout involving "persons
reported£, do they say "First we'll minimise the risk of
damage to property first & only then will we attempt to rescue
the people who are trapped". I know it's a completely
different scenario but is there some over-riding reason why
the same principle shouldn't hold true during the policing of
demonstrations ?

Yes. There is no evidence to show that the risk to people from
kettling is any greater than the risk to the general populace
from allowing protesters free reign to do what they want, where
they want.

I see now why others refer to your "binary" thinking. I haven't
seen anyone else suggest that there are only two options,
kettling or rioting. Do you apply this depth of thinking to
everything you do ? Does everything you do have a Yes or No, On
or Off, Black or White, kettle or riot type answer ?

You really are becoming tiresome. You tell me what alternative
there is to kettling that would prevent groups of protesters
running wild through the city causing mayhem? Look - it worked!

A number of people have suggested the Police should arrest
law-breakers, & we've seen your response that officers can't be
spared from the front-line. I don't buy that argument, not least
because you don't give any figures of the number of officers
potentially available. So if you would care to expand on the
figures re numbers of demonstrators, number of police on the
demonstration & total number of Police available & where they
could be drawn from, then that might help move your argument
forward, rather than repeating ad infitum your mantra of "they
can't be spared off the front-line".

I've no intention of doing an in-depth analysis of this police
operation

LOL. Do you seriously think I would ask *you* to do an in-depth
analysis ? To do an in-depth analysis one would need to have a high
degree of impartiality. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don#t think you
exhibit that necessary qualification.

And you do? !!

No not at all. The difference being that *I* didn't infer I was capable of doing!

- even if I had access to the figures you want.

Cut the waffle. your answer in respect of the numbers is "I don't
know - you should therefore take everything U have said re arrests
cannot be made as every Officer is needed on the front-line - witha
pinch of salt." There's no shame in admitting you can't substantiate
at least one of your two totally contradictory arguments.

It does not take an Einstein to know that when the police are vastly
out-numbered by protesters, they cannot afford to lose people from
the front line. I've policed major and violent demonstratins - you
haven't.

No I haven't, I chose a different career, but I did for a long time harbour the now rather quaint view that a Police Officer, either serving or retired, would have a keener sense of the difference between justice & injustice. Unfortunately, your total inability to differentiate between the two things, as evidenced in this thread, has only served to further dispossess me of that notion.

Actually my understanding was that you have no personal or practical experience whatsoever of policing demonstrators who are subjected to kettling - is that correct ?

I'm telling
you what the situation is - and I have 30 years experience of
policing and also experience of policing violent demonstrations -
whereas you have neither. If you don't want to accept what I am
saying - then that's up to you.

<yawn> Can you see (yet again) the extent to which you keep repeating yourself ?

And I am telling you that I have had a television for over 30 years &
what I have seen leads me to tell you that I have a more complete
overview of what actually happens. Isn't that what you find ?

Your TV gives you no insight into police tactics - no knowledge of
how and why those tactics are developed, no knowledge of what safety
precautions are built into those tactics, etc. etc. etc. - and yet,
from the comfort of your chair, you sit there and pontificate about
matters you know *nothing* about.

Well you claimed to know better than Maris (who was actually there), bsdrd on the fact that watching it on television gave you a complete overview. I watched the first manned landing on the Moon but it didn't make me an astronaut & I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim it gave me a more complete oberview than the people who were actually involved in it.

BTW I still think your comparison with kettling & queuing at Alton
Towers is your best one yet though. You'll have to go some to top
that one.

It's a good one. If people are prepared to stand in a crowd for hours
on end simply to take an amusement ride - you can hardly argue that a
similar experience, albeit enforced, is 'torture'

I never said it was "torture". the only torture I've seen here is the extent to which you repeat the same old mantras & increasingly the torture of watching you continue to dig an ever deeper hole for yourself, but then what you are doing is entirely self-inflicted so I have no sympathy for you.

--
Joe Lee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting accidental
    ... If the police H&S department is concerned only with the safety of the ... It is only an opinion as to how much precaution is worth the ... increase in risk to other people. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting accidental
    ... the police themselves, ... IMO the safety of the public is ... increase in risk to other people. ... intelligence to stop a suspected terrorist group, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting accidental
    ... Besides - the H&S Act would have made it an offence for them not to be so ... If the police H&S department is concerned only with the safety of the ... increase in risk to other people. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting accidental
    ... If the police H&S department is concerned only with the safety of the ... It is only an opinion as to how much precaution is worth the ... increase in risk to other people. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Kettling
    ... fact that the police are in a 'dilemma' over these issues. ... words - there are risks in 'kettling' crowds - but there are also ... Against that, consider the risk & ... control the behaviour of the crowds - just how happy would *you* be? ...
    (uk.legal)