Am a big bag of nerves at the moment as tomorrow I am due in the witness to give evidence against the G20 police officer who assaulted the woman protester, Nicky Fisher, on the 2nd April 2009. I have been distracted and unable to concentrate during the past month or so since I was initially contacted by the IPCC to be a witness for the prosecution and the date has come ever nearer…now tomorrow is the day. I confess I am very nervous. I don’t know when I will be called just sometime tomorrow. And the waiting around is the worst.
Just take a deep breath and get on with it….
Advertisement
Best wishes, hope all goes well
Thanks for that, means a lot!!
Just tell the truth as you saw it, when your old and looking back, this day may be one of your most important public acts.
Your do just fine.
Thanks Mick, indeed… that’s right, tell the truth as I saw it. Thanks again..
Give ‘em Hell! But avoid a- you can’t handle the truth- speech, so passé!
Thanks Rick, I will try and avoid that kind of speech…..but no promises mind you.
I hope it all goes ok tomorrow. Will be thinking of you.
Thanks earwicga.
Good luck. I’m sure you’ll be fine ’cause you’ve got the luxury of being able to tell the truth!
Thanks Tim, off to the court now.
Just like to add my belated best wishes. Good luck.
Sorry in advance for the controversial post.
a) Circumstances…
If this is the case where a female protester wound up a police officer into hitting her… I think its fair dues. Remember Ian (innocent of any wrongdoing) was killed unlawfully by a police officer whom still to this day is anonymous and free to commit more police brutality. This woman (if this is the case I am thinking of) went out to confront a police officer to raise awareness of police brutality.
You can’t confuse the two. The latter… she asked non-stop pushing the officer over the edge. I don’t condone the alleged activity of the police officer, however, although I hate the police, you can’t expect a riot police officer to stay for several hours being called abuse after abuse. Her behaviour was disgusting (in addition to this police officer) and wasn’t appropriate – rather making a mockery over a death of an innocent man.
The killing would still be unlawful but if I walked up to some crazy man with a Samurai Sword and for an hour, non-stop wound him up aiming to push him over the edge… although its still murder, everyone around would comment on me for being so stupid to do it… people would ask themselves what my intention was, (“Was he suicidal?”) rather than commenting on the person who commited the crime.
Whether you like it or not, boxing (for example) even with people of different attributes fighting, both have the equal opportunity at starting at the same time and having time to prepare. I personally wouldn’t – but in the day of equality there is no reason why men and women can’t fight each other… (say in boxing – theoretically!)
What I do not like (which includes police brutality, domestic violence etc.) is the bullying… the elements of over-confidence, control, taking advantage of weaknesses and inflicting pain (physical, emotional etc.)
I am not a judge; but in my eyes… was this woman a victim? I don’t think I could agree. Ian wanted to go home… he was attacked: that is bullying. He was killed; they tried to cover it up. This other police officer who shouldn’t have hit this woman; was working… the streets was his workplace; she started to bully him first.
Retaliation in my eyes (that is retaliation as in defending yourself (but not self-defence) not planning revenge after the current situation) is justifiable. That is, if Person A didn’t bully Person B, Person B wouldn’t have hurt Person A. That is Person A would have been fine if they didn’t start it. Person B is still a victim. Retaliation after bullying is typically physical whereas the person starts it with verbal and emotional abuse… as like in domestic violence, it isn’t ok for the abuse just because its not physical.
In this case; I don’t see the womans human rights being violated as she provoked the attack. I also dont see the police officers human rights being violated as he got redemption – if he didn’t retaliate then his human rights would have been violated.
I will state again I dislike the police, however, as in cases of justice, each case must be individual with merits of actual happenings – I can’t default to the favour of the woman because she has marketing herself as a “victim” and although the police officer was a suspect in the crime, my support lies with him.
I can’t sit here typing away complaining about “conspiracies” with the Government, yet be a hypocrite and contradict myself about supporting this form of behaviour just to raise more awareness and get a certain person (the victim) in the news. Police brutality has been highlighted alot if you look in the right places. Suspicious deaths in custody etc. and a CCTV video of someone getting assaulted… etc.
I am fully in support of the cause of eradicating the behaviour which creates brutality… I feel police brutality has to be a form of bullying and the officer abusing their power of being an officer of the law. If (create a scenario) a person creates a fight with a police officer, hits first… even if the officer was unprofessional enough to join in… that isn’t police brutality neither.
The right to protest isn’t a right to abuse. I am confident that probably 1 in 3 people in the Met are bad apples however the other 2 in 3 isn’t. I was deeply concerned and upset about hearing of and seeing Ian being killed; our anger had no right to be forced on other innocent members of the police force through abuse trying to provoke a response. I am not a violent person but if I was there in riot gear – it would probably only take me 20 minutes to retaliate; seeing the situation from a neutral view… yes I am not a violent person and am against police brutality… I am also not a fan of the techniques of the police force but when provoking the police for a reaction it was only a matter of chance for one officer to lash out.
There is a difference between activist and extremist.
b) You are a great person Louise so I am not suggesting any corruption etc. however you operate a blog including criticising the mistreatment of the protesters (too right!) so you shouldn’t be seen as a reliable witness when you clearly have an interest in this case. Nevertheless I hope it went well. I hope you presented the facts well.
I know little about the case, but this is a a sensible post from FND. At stake is the requirement that we all live within the law – it is not “a la carte”. If you knowingly, deliberately and repeatedly break the law by physically abusing the cops (or indeed anyone else) it’s hard subsequently to claim that you’re on the right side of it. The law specifically upholds the individual’s right to peaceful protest, not violence and anger.
I am reminded of the number of angry motorists who claim to be “law-abiding” but somehow think that breaking the speed limit doesn’t count. Also private landlords who think it’s acceptable not to declare rental income for tax purposes. The law is not “a la carte” and these people are not law-abiding.
This doesn’t justify police violence – and I certainly don’t condone any of the circumstances that surrounded the death of an innocent man.
I hope the case is tried impartially, and the facts presented truthfully.
FND writes a long post because he, with respect, wishes to muddy the water. Richard wants to conflate being angry with being violent. You are allowed to question authority including in the heat of the moment and especially when (let us not forget this) authority is using violence. Holding police officers to account even expressing anger at there wrongdoing should never mean that you become the legitimate target for further violence from them.
Both comments invite us down the road to a police state. This woman was being law abiding, just not in the way the cops liked. I think that a better analogy using landlords would be one where a landlord thinks that the “lord” part of landlord means that they can make up the rules of the tenancy as they see fit. This police officer as far as I can tell thought that the law belonged to him.
Having said that if the history of cops being prosecuted for violent or oppressive behaviour is anything to go by then this man will get away with it somehow. If not at this trial then on appeal. The examples I have in mind are the Melvin/Dingle trial following the forging of the confession that put the Tottenham Three in prison for the murder of PC Blakelock and the time wasting tactics that worked so well for the cops prosecuted for violence on the Wapping picket lines. If anyone has examples to the contrary: please cheer us up.
No attempt is made to “muddy the water”…
Just to point out that:
a) authority has always use force – there is extent to what force is necessary to become “violent”. Police use force all the time to make arrests.. even when the person being arrested is co-operative. This is seen as reasonable. Special forces such as armed police, SAS etc. always use force. If you are suspected of terrorism…. they will enter your house with force, stick their guns at your head and take you down and handcuff you with force….violently…
b) my comment made it clear that I don’t endorse the police attacking us. Just you can’t not expect someone to retaliate when you provoke people.
c) wake up we are already under a police state. Not a military state yet.
d) law abiding? Look at Richard’s suggestions. You have a right to a peaceful protest. The activities she was involved in were a public order offence – thus is a crime – thus broke the law… not law abiding.
e) What about Ian? Some self-obsessed woman wants to steal the limelight – either way I don’t care whether or not this police officer gets off or receives adequate punishment like what a normal citizen would – like I said above; I don’t call this Police Brutality and due to the nature of it being provoked isn’t worth all the publicity.
The police officer did commit a crime either way and its subject to the justice system whether or not he is punished. I also think another significant aspect was the fact she was female. Morally this is worse than if it was a man; because it was commited by a man; however, in a equal society it makes no difference.
I personally feel this little incident (although significant) is overshadowing the major incident of the unlawful killing of Ian.
Sooo this woman provoked the police hoping to cause a reaction to further highlight “police brutality” and get minor injury (of any) is laughable.
Innocent bystander Ian was attacked, repeatedly hit and murdered – he lost his life. His friends and family lost someone special in their lives.
Human Life is the greatest most special element of existence ever – everyone has a right of life.
Whats the similarity with this other case? Simple, activists and protesters jumped on the bandwagon when this woman got the reaction she wanted, made a meal out of it and milking it for all its worth… no loss of life, no distress etc. theres absolutely no case here… She provoked an attack and had someone film it… met the simple 3 stage checklist (1. Provoke, 2. Get hit, 3. Ensure it was filmed)
I am not always right but I always act with the best intentions. I find it a disgusting insult to the family of Ian… Ian had no chance of escaping the attack which ended his life; yet some sick person thought the day after his death, she would basically ASK non-stop for an officer to hit her…. unlike her, Ian didn’t have the choice, sorry I find that extremely offensive and disrespectful.
“Police use force all the time to make arrests.. even when the person being arrested is co-operative. This is seen as reasonable.”
FND, who sees this as reasonable? Do you? Because I don’t and I suspect neither do many others, either.
“Just you can’t not expect someone to retaliate when you provoke people.”
So the police force is filled with Eric Cartmans. “Respect my authority!” Dictionary for retaliate: “To return like for like, especially evil for evil. To pay back (an injury) in kind.” That’s not the job of the police. Furthermore, response should be “in proportion”, and a slap and baton assault clearly isn’t when all you’ve had is a tongue-lashing.
If the police are allowed to physically assault the public when they protest, then this society takes another lurch towards somewhere very unpleasant.
“Richard wants to conflate being angry with being violent” – fair enough tonyb. Anyone can be as angry as they like. But nobody has the right to resort to violence, or physically to abuse a cop.
I take it from you that “This woman was being law abiding, just not in the way the cops liked”. As I remarked, I know nothing about the case. I therefore take it that she didn’t lay a finger on said cop. She didn’t push and shove him, she simply stood her ground and expressed her anger verbally.
Is this your understanding of the truth?
” … some crazy man with a Samurai Sword …”
Is that how you see the police, FND? Is this how we are supposed to be seeing them? A load of crazy men with weapons?
“If you knowingly, deliberately and repeatedly break the law by physically abusing the cops”
The woman in this case was not physically abusing anyone. If you have to distort your argument in this way, Richard, then you have no argument.
We pay for the police. They are supposed to be there to protect us. If a police officer doesn’t have the control not to get punchy when confronted by a non-violent protester, no matter how passionate her tirade, then he should not be doing this job. People are angry at what they see as the state getting out of control. Does this mean we can all be attacked for expressing our anger?
Good luck tomorrow, Harpy. Don’t let them bully you into backing down.
Interesting the scenario re: samurai was nout to do with the police.
The rest is not aimed at me. If you noted the time of the post “tomorrow” is today. Nothing mentioned in any comment by anyone was designed to discourage Louise from giving evidence.
“The woman in this case was not physically abusing anyone. If you have to distort your argument in this way, Richard, then you have no argument”
If you read my original post very carefully, you may note that I didn’t say she was. I was simply remarking that the obligation to live within the law rests on all of us. If, as you state with such certainty, the woman was not physically abusing anyone, this is hardly a controversial remark nor is it a distortion of any argument at all.
“if I walked up to some crazy man with a Samurai Sword and for an hour, non-stop wound him up aiming to push him over the edge”
“Interesting the scenario re: samurai was nout to do with the police”
FND, you state a clear analogy, likening the lead-up to the woman’s alleged assault by the police officer with walking “up to some crazy man with a Samurai Sword”.
“… however you operate a blog including criticising the mistreatment of the protesters (too right!) so you shouldn’t be seen as a reliable witness when you clearly have an interest in this case. ”
That’s just straight up insulting. Having an interest in justice makes you a better, not a worse witness. Or are you accusing Harpy of being sloppy with the verité?
No comment – I am not here to argue – I have made my feelings clear in my previous message. This is all I have to say on this matter.
Thanks madam miaow for the support and solidarity. And FND I am insulted by your comments and rather like you I will say no more on the matter as you don’t merit a discussion!
Thanks as well Sean, meant to say thanks before.
And so FND defines and excuses domestic violence in one foul swoop! Well done!
I saw the video of Nicky Fisher being assaulted and as the survivor of domestic violence I immediately saw a very practiced slap from the police officer.
I hope today wasn’t too traumatic for you Harpy.
Flexible New Deal is right. How can you possibly be non-biased when you operate a blog that ALWAYS sides with protestors against the police. You always do it. You are not a reliable witness in a court of law on this issue and therefore you shouldn’t testify.
Bollocks!
That’s right, John Toy. I believe life is sacred. I’d make an awful witness if I ever saw a murder. Only someone who was truly neutral on the subject could be reliable.
Only just spotted this. So it’s obviously too late to say good luck. But I’m sure you were ace, Louise.
Just to say thanks for all your support, and solidarity (thanks Claude). It was really appreciated and valued. And just to answer earwicga, it wasn’t as traumatic as I thought it would be or as bad. I am very glad it is all over re giving evidence. It was tiring as the you are pumped up adrenalin wise and psyched up. Much more relaxed now.
And to the right-wing trolls, (Richard. FND and the other one… John) there’s not much to say other than my credibility is just fine…
1. Support for the law is hardly right-wing. Left-wing regimes all over the world are not exactly known for gentle policing.
2. I never questioned your credibility on this matter. I hope your contribution helps the court find a just outcome.
Whatever Richard, whatever.
earwicga
I do not think it will help to comment on this case, yet, as it is ongoing. but I would just add this,
Strange as it may seem to some, these type of officers are trained in giving a backhanded slap, I am certain senior police officers police will claim such a slap is designed to take the tension out of a tense situation, Mmmm, perhaps, but I can only see such behavior as further inflaming a situation, the more so when it is followed by a wack across the legs with a metal based stick.
Myself I believe such a slap is used to momentarily shock an individual, giving the police officer time to use their baton by hitting the individual across the lower legs which will disable them by bringing them down to the ground.
In my view such police behavior should be outlawed, because the victim of the baton once hit, crashes to the ground hard, with all the injuries this may cause. Indeed it is relevant Ian was struck in just such a way not long before he died.
Thanks Mick – stupidly I hadn’t thought about it being SOP’s.
There are two questions at stake. 1 – what techniques should the police be taught? 2 – under what circumstances should these techniques be used?
To the first point – given that the police are trained to deal with violent criminals, it seems appropriate that they should receive precisely the training that is described i.e. a rapid means of bringing somebody to the ground with minimal risk of anything more than a bruise. If there’s a safer way to bring someone down, I’m sure the Met would be pleased to hear about it.
Regrettably there is no means entirely to take away the risks to the person. Nobody knows exactly what caused Ian Tomlinson’s death, but the use of the baton as taught clearly can’t be ruled out.
If you’re seriously advocating an end to baton training, then that’s a big step towards drug-pushers, gangs, burglars and, dare I say it, domestic bullies being able to overcome cops without the use of firearms. You may believe that would be a price worth paying in order to reduce the risks posed to people peacefully facing the police, but I’d disagree.
To the second point – and this is the central issue of this entire post – individual policemen must be given guidelines around use of the techniques, and then told what discretion they must exercise within these guidelines. If they overstep the mark, they are rightly subject to the same laws as the rest of us – hence the trial at which HarpyMarx gave evidence.
Richard
I do not really disagree much with you comments, although I do not see drug dealers as being much of a threat in the UK to the police, if we had a sensible policy on illicit drugs there would be no need for street dealers etc, still that is another debate.
I think the main question here is how demos and marches are policed, plus how and from whom the police gain their intelligence and why over the last decade they have come increasingly use to use Robocops to police these events.
It seems, a group think has set in within all UK police forces, which see all demos as potential public order offences in the making. I would go as far as to say this has become institutionalised in much the same way racism is. I say is because under the public duvet of political correctness, the UK police, like society as a whole, is still deeply racist.
All the best
I agree with most of your comment Mick. But the central issue for me is accountability, when a cop, to use Richard’s words, ‘overstep the mark’ then they should be subject to an investigation including criminal proceedings if need be. But reality shows us different and that it is very rare for a cop to be prosecuted. There have been countless examples of violence against protesters by police officers but there has always been a resistance by the state to investigate. The PCA/IPCC have let some many people down who have experienced/witnessed and/or a loved one has died in police custody.
Indeed it is the ideology of the police, which is institutionally racist along with what is euphemistically known as the ‘canteen culture’… There is definitely a change in police tactics and strategy viewing all demos as potential riots, kettling and corralling people, snatch squads and further police brutality. Also the way the cops dress there’s the whiff of the paramilitary getup. But key is accountability and transparency, the problem is you have a police force which currently believes it is above the law with a state funded complaints commission which time and time lets people down who have been the victims of police violence or relatives of victims of police violence.
And to be honest, you only have to look at the police tactics towards anti-fascists at last weekend’s protest in Bolton and previously at Parliament. The cops treated the EDL utterly differently while kettling and bashing anti-fascists.
“It seems, a group think has set in within all UK police forces, which see all demos as potential public order offences in the making. I would go as far as to say this has become institutionalised”
Fair enough Mick – every demo should be treated on its merits. I’d point out, though, that anti-capitalist / anti G20 demos the world over tend to include a violent hard-core of anarchists. Regrettably, the police therefore do have to plan and train for the worst. Not so, for example, when they have to deal with the Countryside March (the only demo that I’ve ever taken part in).
Beyond the unfortunate reality that peaceful protests can be and are hijacked by extreme violent minorities, the protesters shout about “Solidarity” and do little to distance themselves from hardline anarchists. It’s bloody hard to draw the line between peaceful and violent protesters.
Examples of violence on anticapitalist demonstrations:
– the 2001 protests in Genoa resulted in $45m of damage (BBC report); one of the coordinating bodies’ offices was found to contain knives, sledgehammers and a pickaxe
– 2005, Edinburgh – police were attacked with “sticks and staves” (Guardian); protesters were seen digging up cobbles and ripping down fences to use as weapons
– 2000, London – substantial damage including digging up a public park and defacing Churchill’s statue. Shops looted, cars smashed in (bbc) – £3.5m bill
– 2007, Rostock – where vehicles were overturned and torched, roads ripped up and paving stones used as missiles
” defacing Churchill’s statue.”
Defacing was, in this case, a mohican-shaped clod of earth of his head and a trickle of blood from his lips in a witty and telling comment on how much blood British imperialism has on its hands.
No violence. No-one hurt. Unlike the number of people hurt by imperial forces.
I take it cars were smashed in a non-violent, non-aggressive way? Shops were broken into in a spirit of peaceful community with their owners? All entirely non-violent? Nobody’s property harmed? £3.5m picked up by the friendly protesters?
Hilarious.
WW2 was Churchill’s fault. Churchill’s imperialism led Britain to an unprovoked invasion of Eastern Europe, Churchill gassed the Jews, imprisoned the homosexuals and Churchill sent thousands of his own to die in Stalingrad. The Fascist Churchill befriended the Fascist Mussolini.
Churchill set up a police state and never defended democracy. Obviously his statue deserves defacement.
And Mao didn’t kill anyone, nor did Stalin.
Again, Richard, you create straw-man arguments that aren’t being made. While I understand the anger that erupts at these protests, a well-stewarded demo should make sure it is peaceful and that adventurist destruction doesn’t occur.
I was specifically homing in on your assertion that defacing Churchill’s statue was much more than a bloody amusing comment on the British state.
And if you don’t know what imperialism has done to India, Africa and China, for instance, then I can’t help you.
“you create straw-man arguments that aren’t being made”. No, on this occasion it’s definitely not a strawman argument. You picked out the Churchill incident as one where the damage was relatively easily undone – but choose to ignore the ten other instances of violence and vandalism that I cite in support of my original point. I summarise:
Anti-capitalist protests have an unfortunate, but easily provable, track record of violence. Therefore the police need to be trained and equipped to a level required to protect property and people, which is precisely the debate that Mick Hall has constructively engaged in. No strawmen here.
“a well-stewarded demo should make sure it is peaceful and that adventurist destruction doesn’t occur.” I quite agree. Unfortunately the evidence is clear: on too many occasions
– either the demos have not been well-stewarded
– or, despite excellent stewardship, violence and destruction have occurred.
There’s certainly a great debate to be had about imperialism. I know quite a lot about it and I have very strong views, none of which I have expressed. You don’t know what they are, so let’s leave it that way. Just because I’m economically conservative doesn’t mean I’m an imperialist.
There are plenty of statues of imperialists in Westminster with far bloodier hands than Churchill. If you want to lampoon someone there are better targets. Personally, I find it offensive rather than amusing to deface the statue of the man who is best known for leading this country against fascists.
Richard, I know you’re hard of comprehension and are up for a ruck as much as the protesters you decry, but Churchill was a great choice for the lampooning precisely because there is so much ignorance regarding the rest of his not-so-illustrious career.
Now I have a life to get one with and we will just have to agree to disagree.
Ah, the resort to personal insults – always the hallmark of reasoned debate. If I was up for a ruck I’d probably turn up to the next anti-capitalist march and thump someone, but I won’t – partly because I’m nothing like the violent wing of protesters, partly because I believe the risk of encountering a protester with a weapon is too high.
To be clear, I do not, nor have I ever, decried peaceful protest.
Thanks for your tacit acknowledgement that the violent track record of anti-capitalist demos justifies training and equipping the police to respond commensurately.
Richard, nobody has insulted you actually you engage in the mischief making and to be honest I don’t know why anyone bothers as you are a right wing troll who just likes baiting the left. And frankly Richard, you are really not worth debating so don’t expect any as you go beyond trying the patience and beyond irritating. I suppose you get great joy baiting the lefties, sad but true and it seems like you have no life other than reading my blog…and I even I don’t look at my blog as much as you… not sure whether to be flattered or not…..
Take up a hobby and meet some people in the real world, like we all do. Be an experience for you.
A group for you Richard: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204159756
Thanks for reminding me of the ‘vandalism’ of the statue – loved that picture.