Yes, completely unjustified, that crowd looked very calm and he definitely looked like a quiet word would have sent him on his way. Definitely.

Seriously; you’re crying wolf. When actual evidence of actual police brutality comes along nobody’s going to pay attention.

GET IN THERE MY SON!

I can think of a way of reducing the budget deficit, allowing the decent law-abiding taxpayer to bid for a position in the police lines to let us at these feckless student tossers.

Theres no context to this video, it starts and ends with the punch. There was obviously video taken before the punch so why isn’t it shown.

Yawn

Seriously; you’re crying wolf. When actual evidence of actual police brutality comes along nobody’s going to pay attention.

Or more like, right-wing trolls will do anything to play down police violence, even when it’s obvious.

Reader says it was taken at the student protests yesterday. It clearly shows a policeman punching a student at the fracas yesterday.

As Dave @3 says, there is no context to the video. Furthermore, the student appears to continue to advance towards the police line with the officer (he may not have had a choice if someone behind was pushing him forward, but it’s difficult to tell).

The officer’s punch itself may be the use of a ‘distraction technique’ – you can read about them on page 58 of Policing Protest. I make no comment about whether or not they are good or bad, nor whether it was appropriate in this situation – there simply isn’t enough information for the latter. I would say, however, that no-one in the people in the video look especially “peaceful”.

I’m glad Sunny let the video speak for itself and didn’t use hyperbole.

Sunny, this is not a troll, but there seems to be competing assumptions here surely? On the one hand is your assumption that the protesters are peaceful in all circumstances and on the other that the police are not acting in a deliberately violent way.

Watching the video a few times it seems to me that:

(a) The protesters are pushing forward at the same time the Police are pushing in the opposite direction.
(b) the policeman does make contact but the speed of the video gives me the impression that he was swinging his fist yes, but that the target of that fist was not specific.
(c) the lack of context as mentioned means we do not get to see what happened before this because the camera is pointing the wrong way.

As such I don’t think you can conclude either that (a) the copper deliberately went on a punching rampage and (b) that the students were being peaceful necessary.

Frankly this is the biggest problem with any protests these days. We get selective footage from all sides, which, produces “evidence” that is based entirely on where the “benefit of the doubt” is given as a starting assumption.

All we can say from the video is that a policeman’s fist hit the face of a protester. What we can’t say is whether it was excessive, unnecessary, provoked or unprovoked. Is there any other video of the same incident from different angles?

Sunny, apologies, the “peaceful” assumption is not yours but the person who uploaded the video and gave it a title. General point stands though, sorry once again for saying you said it.

dizzy:
gives me the impression that he was swinging his fist yes, but that the target of that fist was not specific.

Having watched it a few times, I think it’s obvious the fist hit the guy right in front of him and was aimed at him…

‘Reader says it was taken at the student protests yesterday. It clearly shows a policeman punching a student at the fracas yesterday.’

Would have been funnier if you’d said ‘punching a student in the fracas.’

If you want this stuff to go viral you’ve got to develop a sense of humour.

Agree with most of the posters here that the protesters didn’t look all that peaceful, but from the narrow context of a seven-second video the punch does look like a disproportionate response. And yeah, it’s hard to say whether footage of the seconds before the incident would show the protester to represent a more obvious threat, or that he was just being shoved forward from behind.

What it certainly doesn’t show is a stoic protester standing still or marching slowly before being sucker-punched by a cop, which is kinda what the video title leads you to expect.

There is always pushing and shoving – that happens when the police try to kettle demonstrators, even if they’ve done nothing.

In this case it clearly shows a policeman punching a protester at random.

Sunny in your previous post you said this was obviously aimed at the guy (which I agree with) and then you say he was punched at random.

Both can’t be true, unless you mean the reason for punching him was random, but this still cant be seen in the video no matter how much it is slowed down.

Another angle filmed bu UCLOccupation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-etV57xZ4_I

Gareth – excellent, thanks for that. Will update.

Dave – meant that the policeman was punching out at anyone, but the punch in that case was aimed at the guy. I’m saying there isn’t an easily discernible reason why he punched that guy.

it’s simple isn’t it? whatever your political persuasion, we want the police to use proportionate force, i.e. when pushed push back, but not to go swinging punches at youngsters in contexts like this.

I can’t get too excited about it – until we recruit the police exclusively from the ranks of philosophy grad schools*, I expect the odd ‘fighty’ individual, who in confrontational situations is going to hit out, is inevitable. Like it or not, the police do need some policemen with a capacity for violence. But they ought to be trained to deal with this sort of thing without losing their cool, so there’s no excuse. So I don’t know whether the policeman in question ought merely to be disciplined and either retrained or withdrawn from this sort of duty, or whether prosecution for common assault is called for.

* actually, I bet a few academics, handed a baton and told to keep order, would reveal a nasty streak

His badge number looks like U1292 – frame 0:04 / 0:11

clearly going on a student punching rampage and lashing out against anyone.

I guess I spoke too soon about the hyperbole…

I’m saying there isn’t an easily discernible reason why he punched that guy.

But let’s nevertheless assume the officer is in the wrong! He must be in the wrong, mustn’t he? He’s a copper.

Despite the fact that the students were disregarding orders to keep back from the police line.

I assume that the gloves the officer is wearing are made of and contain materials rather denser and harder than say merino wool and that when a police punches someone with such a glove it hurts rather more than being shoved.

Sunny, labelling anyone whose opinion differs from your own ‘right-wing trolls’ doesn’t show you in a particularly good light I’m afraid. I’m anything but right-wing, but they person who said over-hyping of ‘police brutality’ has a ‘Peter and the wolf effect’ made a good and relevant point.

The fact is, that police are allowed to hit people, proving they can justify the use of force. I’m not defending it in this instance (or any) but that is the law, and this video is clearly lacking in wider context.

I think someone as politically vacillating as yourself would do well to refrain from labelling people right-wing, or left-wing (depending on where you currently reside) and perhaps accept that someone might see things differently than you, not because they are bound to non-objective ideology, but because you yourself are.

Dear Trolls,

Are you all retarded, or just mendacious?

The point is quite simple: there is *no* context in which the police can justifiably go around punching people in the face. They are supposed to use professional techniques authorised by superiors which calm situations down. They are not supposed to act like drunks on a bar brawl, hammering people in the face because they can get away with it.

You idiots are supposed to be against big government and the nanny state. So why, when the physical manifestaion of the state’s monopoly of force gets out of control, do you rush to excuse it?

Because as I indicated above, you’re either retarded or mendacious.

I would love to hear from those defending this policeman how punching someone achieves a policing goal. Even if we assume the absolute worst and that lad was committing some serious crimes, the appropriate response is to send in a snatch squad or otherwise try to detain him. Punching him in the face and then letting him go doesn’t bring him to justice, it’s just an expression of personal anger. Assuming anything less than the worst, and he was just unlucky to be at the front of the crowd.

As much as they try to paint themselves on the side of the authorities, people defending this assault have no respect for the law, and just want people they disagree with to be physically punished.

Luis,

“I expect the odd ‘fighty’ individual, who in confrontational situations is going to hit out, is inevitable.”

The problem is, it’s *not* just a case of a few fighty individuals let off the lead. It’s a problem that runs deep in the policeforce, whereby they see it as their right to aggrerssively and physically intimidate and attack protestors. Every single protest I have ever attended has seen the police start any trouble that arose. Like I said at my place the other day – in response to the police punching people in the face at the first Cambridge demo – this is an institutional problem, not one about mere individual actions.

From the second video the punchee is already retreating, copper is attacking dunno if the babylon was provoked or not but I know a few things:

1. That’s not a valid police restraint technique – It’s a vicious attack. In my day it was all punches where bruises don’t show or you had an accident with a slippery stairwell.

2. He certainly aimed that punch and made contact more than once. He intended that course of action.

3. He soon changes ‘technique’ when he realises there’s a UCLO videographer there.

The police have to account for their actions. You need video of the punchee before he got punk’d then you’d have a case against the rozzer overstepping the mark.

Are you all retarded, or just mendacious?

When facing a question like that, I always opt for “both”.

You idiots are supposed to be against big government and the nanny state. So why, when the physical manifestaion of the state’s monopoly of force gets out of control, do you rush to excuse it?

Because they’re only against “big government and the nanny state” when it’s doing thing they don’t like, such as protecting other people. When it’s big burly uniformed men assaulting people they don’t identify with, it gives them a chubby. Because, at heart, they are authoritarians. Many of them just suffer from the delusion that they’re authoritarian leaders rather than followers.

@20 – Lol I must be retarded because I had to look up mendacious.

But in reply Im desperate to lick your arse on this one Paul and agree with anything you say, but your heads in the way.

@13 – this video shows things a bit better and the individual didnt act aggressively, or even mendaciously, he just tried to get past the policeman. The copper also elbowed someone in the face prior and I think the whole thing stinks and he should be disciplined and given a nit of training.

Sunny please will you delete my original post where I said the video lacked content? I dont want Paul to get any more upset and be a meanie to people, perhaps instead of a comments box it could automatically just post a message of agreement with the OP.

[20] Ooo, look – somebody who is not afraid to say that anything less than perfection is bad and that anybody who suggests otherwise is a troll.

Anyway, on to trial by You-tube? – well to me it looked like the copper was swerving to avoid the fire extinguisher that was falling to the ground like a bullet.
Unfortunately this bit of the incident was just out of camera shot.

On the Channel 4 programme ”Coppers” the other night, which was about the EDL and UAF in Bolton a few months ago, a policeman told a UAF woman that he was allowed to punch anyone in the face if he felt it was waranted.

Deleted like clockwork. Good work Sonny.

Is it just me or by the look of the second video this police officer hits more than one individual (once in the first second and again at the fourth second) and in both instances seems to be going for the face?

That policeman is massive compared to the students he’s hitting. I work in a high risk environment and I could never justify punching someone in the face in my line of work.

Their was a comment made about the states monopoly on (legal) violence and if the Police were deliberately kettling and provoking students with aggressive behaviour then I think it only reinforces the fact that the commentator’s statement is true.

When is a duck not a duck? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck isn’t it a duck? Thats Police aggression and violence.

Paul,

The point is quite simple: there is *no* context in which the police can justifiably go around punching people in the face. They are supposed to use professional techniques authorised by superiors which calm situations down.

“punching people in the face” is a technique authorised by superiors.

They are not supposed to act like drunks on a bar brawl, hammering people in the face because they can get away with it.

More hyperbole. Are you retarded or mendacious?

Steve: thanks for the kind advice but I don’t write to make friends with dense people. I didn’t say all were right-wing trolls – there are plenty of idiots of other political persuasion too.

and perhaps accept that someone might see things differently than you, not because they are bound to non-objective ideology, but because you yourself are.

If someone makes a point in opposition that is valid, I might afford them some respect. If someone just says: LOLZ LOOK AT THAT POLICEMAN SMACK THE DIRTY HIPPY then I don’t really care much for their opinion of me.

Lastly – we get idiots here all the time saying everything is being over-hyped. Fine. They’re welcome to read other blogs and avoid libcon.

Lastly – we get idiots here all the time saying everything is being over-hyped. Fine. They’re welcome to read other blogs and avoid libcon.

I thought you set this site up to promote the left and destroy the right? How are you going to do that if the only people who are welcome are ones who already agree with you?

Luis,

it’s simple isn’t it? whatever your political persuasion, we want the police to use proportionate force, i.e. when pushed push back, but not to go swinging punches at youngsters in contexts like this.

I don’t want to get all macho here (always a risk with discussions about violence) but that officer looks like he could have done a bit more damage if he had wanted and the student doesn’t appear to be the biggest of men. The officer first shoves the student away, the student continues to advance, the student is punched. The officer made the student reel a bit, that is true, but anyone inexperienced in a fight (most people) will reel if punched; it’s pretty shocking to be hit with some force even if no damage is done, even in gentle sparring at boxing or martial arts classes. So we don’t know how hard it was (except it looks like the student is at the end of the officer’s reach) but the student stays up, swings his arms about, and stays back – not obviously greatly hurt but he’s unwilling to advance, job done. The officer doesn’t advance toward the student – he stays on his line (might have been different if he hadn’t noticed the filming? Where is the “rampage”? (i know you didn’t suggest there was a rampage, someone else did). If the person continues to advance despite the officer saying “get back”, the officer will push back. If the person continues to advance, what should the officer do? I ask because I genuinely want an opinion.

Aside from the mounted police in the background of a recent video, the police in these videos have so far seemed fairly restrained to me – certainly in comparison to previous protests. Yet this site is characterising their actions as “brutality”, “student punching rampages”, and so on. I wonder what purpose is being served. Ah forget it, let’s get everyone angry at the police! Even though some of them are on the side of protesters.

I’d say there is a question here about the appropriateness of the punches. But I don’t think it’s as black and white as some people are pretending – and look, if you advance towards a police line there will be violence, I am not sure why people expect something else. I think some people want to advance toward a police line and have the police just let them get on with it.

OK maybe this cop has blotted his copy book, or maybe he hasn’t, if we accept UKL’s erudite analysis – see [5].

But perhaps we could even dispense with the cops altogether, and allow this man to explain DIRECTLY to the protestors (as in face to face) why even important principles count for very little once you are occupying the hot seat?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AMABsBNgw&feature=related

I wonder how some protestors might react?

@19 – Peter and the Wolf and the Boy Who Cried Wolf are two different stories.

The former ends happily (except for the duck which gets eaten), the latter less so.

LOLZ LOOK AT THAT POLICEMAN SMACK THE DIRTY HIPPY

Indeed.

But given what the videos actually show it probably doesn’t help to go to the other extreme.

OMFG LOOK AT THE EVIL COPS BEATING UP THE LITTLE KIDS

[33] “the police in these videos have so far seemed fairly restrained to me – certainly in comparison to previous protests. Yet this site is characterising their actions as “brutality”, “student punching rampages”, and so on. I wonder what purpose is being served” – now that is very good question.

Is it just possible that if the cage is rattled hard, and often enough one or two susceptible individual’s might resort to retaliatory measures?

@ 17 UKLiberty

“Despite the fact that the students were disregarding orders to keep back from the police line.”

So the correct punishment for disobeying a police officer should be a punch in the face? That’s a policy I haven’t heard advocated for awhile.

@cjcjc

Haha. You are indeed right. Thanks for putting be straight. I do know of the two differing stories, I think it was just a Freudian blip!

Chaise,

Despite the fact that the students were disregarding orders to keep back from the police line

So the correct punishment for disobeying a police officer should be a punch in the face? That’s a policy I haven’t heard advocated for awhile.

That’s a disappointment; I thought you were a reasonable conspirator.

[38] “So the correct punishment for disobeying a police officer should be a punch in the face” – no I don’t think that’s fair I simply cannot imagine UKL condoning unnecessary, excessive, or unwarranted force.

A link was supplied on policing protests and lack of context was also identified as a significant variable.

Make of this what you will but I think it is hard to support a conclusion (based on these posts) that UKL is suggesting that the correct punishment for disobeying a police officer should be “a punch in the face”?

@cjcjc

I totally agree. I am against police brutality, but also think they need to be able to use some force on occasion. I wonder if so many ‘lefties’ would be as shocked if the policeman was hitting someone from the EDL? The rules should be the same for everybody regardless of whether you agree with their ideologies.

There has clearly been a propaganda campaign by sections of the media against the student’s cause, but there is almost as much coming from the left in countenance. I think it’s a real shame, because as someone instinctively on the side of the students and social rights, every time I hear people on the left exaggerating or even blatantly twisting things it pushes me away, and makes me think it is more a cynical battle of ideologies rather than a genuine effort to progress.

People who want to demonise the police and think authority removes our civil liberties should visit somewhere practically lawless, like Caracas, and see how many civil liberties the people enjoy there! Take away the control of authority and a much crueller, criminal power steps into its place. Balance is what is required.

@ 40

“That’s a disappointment; I thought you were a reasonable conspirator.”

I like to think I am, and I also think that calling me unreasonable, rather than explaining why you think I’m wrong, is a tad unreasonable in itself.

Your post at 17 does seem to say quite clearly that the officer isn’t in the wrong because the protesters were disobeying police orders. I can’t really see another way to read it. And if that is what you mean, I think it’s entirely reasonable of me to protest. If not, why not explain?

His response upon seeing the camera shows that he knew what he was doing was wrong. That’s all the evidence I need that the police have serious issues…

A&E @41, thank you for your comment – I very much appreciate it.

As someone who has criticised police on a number of occasions for, among other things preventing tourists and journalists from taking photographs, running an unlawful fingerprint and DNA database, recording the details and photos of people attending protests (including journalists), it baffles me that anyone would think that I support police violence.

@ 41

“I don’t think that’s fair I simply cannot imagine UKL condoning unnecessary, excessive, or unwarranted force.

A link was supplied on policing protests and lack of context was also identified as a significant variable.

Make of this what you will but I think it is hard to support a conclusion (based on these posts) that UKL is suggesting that the correct punishment for disobeying a police officer should be “a punch in the face”?”

I find it weird that UKL would suggest that too, but that’s what post 17 says (or more accurately, it suggests that it’s unfair to blame the cop because the protesters were ignore police orders). Am I reading a different version of that post than everyone else or something?

Chaise,

@ 40

“That’s a disappointment; I thought you were a reasonable conspirator.”

I like to think I am, and I also think that calling me unreasonable, rather than explaining why you think I’m wrong, is a tad unreasonable in itself.

Sometimes if I think a person is being rude or unreasonable I just can’t be bothered. If you weren’t being rude or unreasonable I apologise.

Your post at 17 does seem to say quite clearly that the officer isn’t in the wrong because the protesters were disobeying police orders.

That isn’t at all clear to me.

I said,

[Sunny] I’m saying there isn’t an easily discernible reason why he punched that guy.

But let’s nevertheless assume the officer is in the wrong! He must be in the wrong, mustn’t he? He’s a copper.

What I intended to suggest by this sarcasm is that we can’t tell if the officer is in the wrong, not that he clearly isn’t in the wrong.

I added,

Despite the fact that the students were disregarding orders to keep back from the police line.

Meaning he didn’t act in a vacuum, to support my previous, sarcastic, remark; the student wasn’t walking down the street

Chaise,

I can’t really see another way to read it. And if that is what you mean, I think it’s entirely reasonable of me to protest. If not, why not explain?

OK. Your comment appeared to suggest that I think “the correct punishment for disobeying a police officer should be a punch in the face”, which I thought was unreasonable. If you did not intend to suggest that’s what I think, but were rather making a point, it nevertheless seems a non sequitur.

In my first two comments, which I posted before the video was changed to the current one, I thought I was pretty clear that we did not have enough information, and that I wasn’t going to make a judgement.

Bring back the edit facility.

“Meaning he didn’t act in a vacuum, to support my previous, sarcastic, remark; the student wasn’t walking down the street”

Should read,

Meaning he didn’t act in a vacuum, to support my previous, sarcastic, remark; the student wasn’t walking down the street when the officer decided to punch him à propos de rien.

And again, I’m not saying the officer is in the wrong, or the student is in the wrong. I just do not know, I do not think there is enough information.

UKLiberty

“Sometimes if I think a person is being rude or unreasonable I just can’t be bothered. If you weren’t being rude or unreasonable I apologise.”

I’ll admit to being sarky, so if you file that under “rude” then fair enough. I certainly wasn’t trying to be unreasonable or bend your words or anything like that.

Your post at 17 does seem to say quite clearly that the officer isn’t in the wrong because the protesters were disobeying police orders.

“What I intended to suggest by this sarcasm is that we can’t tell if the officer is in the wrong, not that he clearly isn’t in the wrong…

…Meaning he didn’t act in a vacuum, to support my previous, sarcastic, remark; the student wasn’t walking down the street.”

OK… I added too much weight to your last sentence. I read it as a defense of the officer’s actions in and of itself, whereas you seem to be pointing out that the issue can’t simply be reduced down to “cop punches student”. Sorry (I think that’s the second apology I’ve had to give you this week).

“OK. Your comment appeared to suggest that I think “the correct punishment for disobeying a police officer should be a punch in the face”, which I thought was unreasonable. If you did not intend to suggest that’s what I think, but were rather making a point, it nevertheless seems a non sequitur.

In my first two comments, which I posted before the video was changed to the current one, I thought I was pretty clear that we did not have enough information, and that I wasn’t going to make a judgement.”

It’s what I thought you meant; I was wrong. Your position actually seems close to mine @10.

@ Chaise,

For me, anyone who names themselves after Che Guevara – someone who revered the authoritarian communism responsible for ruining the lives of so many – instantly removes themselves from reasoned debate.

* 49

The words “Your post at 17 does seem to say quite clearly that the officer isn’t in the wrong because the protesters were disobeying police orders” should not be there. Copy-and-paste fuck-up.

@ 50

“For me, anyone who names themselves after Che Guevara – someone who revered the authoritarian communism responsible for ruining the lives of so many – instantly removes themselves from reasoned debate.”

That’s nice. For me, anyone who attacks someone else’s screen name because they haven’t got anything else to say was probably never part of reasoned debate in the first place. Kthxbye.

Chaise,

I find it weird that UKL would suggest that too, but that’s what post 17 says (or more accurately, it suggests that it’s unfair to blame the cop because the protesters were ignore police orders

Not at all; if the officer used disproportionate force of course he was in the wrong! But the officer is ‘legally’ entitled to use reasonable force to defend the line ( @5 I pointed people to a document that talks about this – see page 58). They are trained to use “punches” as techniques to control people – obviously they shouldn’t go ’round lamping people for no reason, there has to be a good reason. (NOTE: I am not saying the force used here was reasonable or unreasonable – I do not know)

Here is the problem at the heart of this: if you advance on a police line there will be physicality, and the harder you press the police the more violent the situation will become (rightly or wrongly). It’s going to be hard to tell who is in the wrong if protesters advance regardless of orders – unless we are saying that the police must offer no resistance to advance (which ain’t going to happen).

Sorry (I think that’s the second apology I’ve had to give you this week).

No worries, that’s very decent of you. Let’s shake hands and say no more of it!

I agree with your comment @10, btw.

@ 53

*shakes hand*

Much appreciated.

Paul Sagar #20; I think the “retarded and/or mendacious” bit here is assuming everybody who disagrees with you about anything is interchangeable. I’m assuming your comment was at least partly aimed at me, so what gave you the idea I’m against “big government and the nanny state”?

What I’m mainly against is knee-jerk hyperbolic point-scoring overreactions.

Take another look at the videos. Do you really think restraining individuals from the crowd would have helped them keep control?

Do you actually think the officer was “hammering on somebody’s face”, given it was a relatively slow strike and the “victim” appeared undamaged and still happy to argue afterwards?

The protestor was also clearly reaching towards the officer. Yes, he was probably trying to defend himself, a perfectly fair reaction – but one that’s not easily distinguishable from an attempt to grab. Getting into a grappling situation wouldn’t have been good news for anybody.

How are you going to do that if the only people who are welcome are ones who already agree with you?

No one is doing that. People are welcome to disagree. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with them either. And lastly – if some lefties don’t take police brutality seriously, that’s not my problem. We’ll still carry on running these stories.

As for Steve – your comment at @50 pretty much explains why I can’t take you seriously.

It really is difficult to get too shock horror about this sort of stuff.

Watch closely.

The police act as the direct arm of the state to enforce it’s laws..

The state is defined by it’s monopoly of violence within it’s geographical territory.

So when the state is challenged by, say, demonstrators the police use violence to defend it.

What is strange about that?

[56] “if some lefties don’t take police brutality seriously, that’s not my problem” – I doubt if there are many lefties who do not take police brutality very seriously, especially in the climate that developed post Ian Tomlinson – but what we have here is a brief clip that because of lack of context can be interpreted in more than one way.

Now I can see why this sort of ambiguity might be annoying, especially when some are rather keen to depict riot police as the unthinking, and uncritical instrument of state oppression – but one of life’s challenges is learning to accept that not everything can be portrayed in such black and white terms?

Are you or do you know the person shown being punched in the videos?

If so, please contact the Green&BlackCross support team on O7946 541511

Also, anyone with video taken in the minutes leading up to this incident, please get in touch.

Sunny,

Can you not take me seriously because I criticised you, because I dislike Che Guevara, or because I think idolising him devalues ones opinions? I hope it is either the former or the latter, because if you are a fan of Che yourself I’d have to call your own judgement into question. Hari argues the point far better than I ever could; http://www.johannhari.com/2007/10/08/revering-che-guevara-is-a-sick-sad-joke

I generally appreciate what you write, so no need to treat me as a foe.

@ 60

Steve

I think it might be that you can’t tell the difference between a reference and idolization, and that you have the gall to ad hom someone while at the same time saying that they have “removed themselves from reasonable debate”. Just a guess though.

[Should make it clear I haven’t been following the debate between you and Sunny, I’m just fed up of your random attacks on me.]

Actually Chaise, you’re right, I can’t. I wouldn’t think someone who named themselves ‘Hitler’ was just making a quirky cultural reference, and I don’t think you are either. If in fact you are not one of the many woefully misinformed people who hold Che as some kind of people’s hero, I do apologise though. Though it still seems a rather silly name to chose.

I’m scratching my head as to why, when the second video makes it bloody obvious, anyone is defending this copper? Since when were demonstators fair game to be punched hard in the face by agents of the State? and since when did anyone on this blog support such actions?

As for Steve @60: Your name is an anagram of “Et ves”, which is Latin for “and the evening”, which I can only take to be a reference to Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives. I’m appalled and shocked, etc.

@ 63

I’m not. Don’t agree with his politics, don’t have his picture on my wall, don’t condone the evils that have happened and continue to happen in Cuba. Chaise Guevara is meant to be a silly name (a crappy personal in-joke, in fact). It’s a tad unfair to assume I chose it out of some kind of hero worship without actually first waiting to see if what I say on this site reflects that theory (or just asking me upfront).

I don’t think it’s massively controversial to make a joke out of a historical name in your pseudonym (possible exception for Hitler there). If you’re looking for suspicious names, I’d be more inclined to challenge people called things like Britain For The Britons or Eat The Rich. And you also must admit its a bit much to call me unreasonable in a post that contains nothing but an ad hom attack.

Steve,

Actually Chaise, you’re right, I can’t. I wouldn’t think someone who named themselves ‘Hitler’ was just making a quirky cultural reference, and I don’t think you are either. If in fact you are not one of the many woefully misinformed people who hold Che as some kind of people’s hero, I do apologise though. Though it still seems a rather silly name to chose.

Well, the name isn’t “Che”, it’s Chaise, which is French for “chair”. Chaise Guevara, then, could be a play on words along the lines of (arm)chair revolutionary. I’m just guessing, I haven’t thought about it.

In any case, it’s odd to have a go at people about their names, although I take the point about calling oneself “Hitler”.

@Chaise

Fair enough. I take it back and apologise. I’ve met a lot of people on my travels (especially in South America) who do idolise Che without knowing anything about him so I wrongly assumed you were the same. It also amuses me that so many people buy consumer items adorned with his image when he would hate the idea of it.

Leave me alone, I haven’t even commented on this thread

@ 66

“Well, the name isn’t “Che”, it’s Chaise, which is French for “chair”. Chaise Guevara, then, could be a play on words along the lines of (arm)chair revolutionary. I’m just guessing, I haven’t thought about it.”

Hooray! Somebody gets the terrible pun that is my name! Nice one, UKL, I think you’re the first (or at least the first to say so).

@ 67

No harm done. I’d never considered the irony of Che-branded t-shirts.

(S Pill, #64); I’m similarly bedmused by how people can so wilfully misinterpret video evidence.

“Punched hard in the face”? If that man was punched hard in the face, he ought to quit being a student and make a fortune as a heavyweight boxer,

Anyone who was actually at the protests yesterday will know that there were a large number of protesters there for a ruck with the police first and foremost (please deny this if I am speaking out of turn… I’m not am I?) There were also a large number of police there with little or no regard for being calm and reasonable, rather they were there to happily accept the offer of a ruck if one presented itself.

Two groups of thugs, one result.

Slow down the second video to, say, quarter speed.

Watch the officer (O), the guy with the backpack (BP) and red gloves, and the guy with the headphones (HP) – HP is the guy who is hit in the first video.

It’s actually BP who is the first to be hit, which can’t be seen in the first video. It doesn’t look like a punch is appropriate for BP, it doesn’t look like he’s advancing towards O or ‘threatening’ in any way, but difficult to tell. Let’s say he isn’t, until another video turns up.

Just before O punches BP, HP leans toward O and appears to push O’s chest. So I’m sorry but I’m not going to agree HP is entirely innocent (on the face of it a punch seems inappropriate but I do not know).

After being hit, BP attempts to guard or cover his face with his hands, and moves to his left, between HP and O. O shoves away BP, and BP collides with HP behind him. Both stagger back, BP continues to move to his left, away from O. It looks like HP attempts to shove O again – or perhaps he is merely trying to keep him away, it is hard to tell. Either way, it is at this point that O punches HP in the head.

All this happens within 4 seconds.

After a bit of half-hearted stuff between O and HP, O registers the camera at 6 seconds.

[64] “Since when were demonstators fair game to be punched hard in the face by agents of the State” – phrases like “fair game” set up a hunting metaphor, with the police in this instance assigned to the role of predator.

If the question is put in more neutral terms – “when is it OK for a police officer to punch somebody” – possible answers might include, self defense, or to preempt a more serious situation (or injury), to protect a colleague, etc.

Put another way – is anybody arguing that a police officer should not be allowed to punch somebody under ANY circumstances?

Even if the officer in the clip acted unprofessionally what does the action of one individual in the middle of a heated protest signify given that 33,000 officers are employed by the Met and precedents exist which prove that life or limb is under threat trying to contain the protests?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/12/student-fees-protest-fire-extinguisher

It goes without saying that these confrontations might have been avoided had one or two politicos stuck to their principles – needless to say such characters are nowhere to be seen when it’s time to do the dirty work?

@68. Hitler wrote:
Leave me alone, I haven’t even commented on this thread

Best comment ever!

A number have people have commented on the policeman ‘calming down’ as soon as he sees he’s being filmed. I think this speaks volumes about how justified he thinks his actions were.

Gareth #76; actually he backs away before he sees the camera. You might argue he was going to go forward again, but that’s quite creative interpretation.

Gareth,

A number have people have commented on the policeman ‘calming down’ as soon as he sees he’s being filmed.

They are mistaken, though: he lowers his arms at just after 5s and sees the camera at nearly 7s.

“Over at The Third Estate, they point out that the police have gone back to covering up their identification numbers.”

This is a lot more serious than a bit of panicky windmilling.

Is it even legal?

Chervil, it is my understanding that it is not a legal requirement to display numbers, it is instead up to the Chief Constable. HMCIC recommends it be made mandatory and strong disciplinary action taken against those who hide them.

Its ridiculous that there are so many comments on this article, most of which are arguing insane technicalities such as whether his arms were lowered at 5 or 6 or 7 seconds, or whether he aimed his punch at anyone, or whether it was a punch at all. The fact is, there is reasonably clear footage showing a police officer punching a student, who appears to be fairly young, in the face, on numerous occasions. Whether you are left or right wing, or do not have any political standpoint, is it not obvious that this is wrong, and actually quite a despicable action? I find it unbearably hard to understand why anyone is arguing this officer’s case. Of course they should use physical restraint, I dont think anyone should be against that, or they are quite possibly mad. However to be throwing clear punches at anyone just seems absolutely unequivocally ridiculous, and guess what? If that kid had punched him back in the face, he would have been arrested. What sets police officers apart from ‘the people’? This really has saddened me to see.