Is that “more draconian policing” or even more draconian policing?

What does Boris really think about this?

He has a brain unlike most politicians and policmen. He knows that the Met deliberately sets out to provoke violence and that it’s a bit like a rugby club outing for the TSG.

I know he’s chairman of the police authority but when is he going to speak the truth?

Where is your quote from, Sunny? Because when I search for it the only site returned is this one.

@2 I Agree, I found this longer quote from a few days back which says:

“‘We live in a liberal democracy, I do not want to see the Met police engage in an arms race with the protesters,’ said Mr Johnson.

‘But, on the other hand, we need to keep this thing under review.’

Using the ‘non-lethal weapon’, deployed to quell civil unrest in Northern Ireland, would ‘hand a victory to the minority who use violence’.

‘We have free, open systems where the police do not use that kind of technique or weapon,’ said Mr Johnson.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850352-water-cannon-at-protests-would-spark-arms-race-says-boris-johnson#ixzz18GYYNdBS

Seems hes chnaged his mind then

heres a fuller account of what he says, and he does indeed say it, amongst other things

http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/discussion-of-tactics-for-student-riots-at-mayors-qt/

Boris does not want to ratchet up crowd control, because this is a free city. In answer to the question, was the use of water cannon a technical, operational or political decision, Boris replied it was a political decision, and he was not prepared to use such a method for the moment and hoped it would never be necessary.

Later on, Brian Coleman said dangerous attacks on the police were wrong and completely uncalled for. Surely nobody needed to wear a mask? Some police were the same age as the students, and a lot less advantaged, he pointed out. The Mayor said again, there was a balance to be struck. It was wrong for demonstrators to ignore clear directions and refuse to stick to the route of the march, but he wished to protect the right to protest. Water cannon, tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannon, guns, would not be part of the police strategy. “We are not going to hand them a propaganda victory of seeing more violence against young people” said Boris.

@ 4

I can’t find “We don’t want to hand the protesters a propaganda victory by introducing more draconian policing” on that site.

The closest I can find is “We are not going to hand them a propaganda victory of seeing more violence against young people”, in which “them” could mean violent people rather than all protesters, which would better fit with the comments you quoted @3.

If Sunny’s using that as the source for his “quote” above, he’s using false attribution. So I hope that’s not the case.

@5 Thats what I took “them” to mean as well, suppose it depends on whether your buying or selling

You are quoting my website above, but giving rather a wrong impression. I attended Mayor’s Question Time yesterday and noted down the Mayor’s remarks.

Boris spent a lot of time explaining how important it was to him to protect the right to protest. It was clear from his remarks that he is peace loving and freedom loving and as also noted on my website in the Quotes of the Week on the right, he has said several times, “The right to protest is a beautiful thing.”

Boris was clearly concerned about the safety of both the police and the demonstrators and he made it absolutely clear that he abhorred the violence. He did say he did not want to hand a propoganda victory to “them” and I took this to mean violent protesters. It is absolutely wrong and a complete distortion of the truth to extract from the Mayor’s remarks when he was supporting peace, liberty and freedom of speech that he was only concerned to avoid bad press.

It you attended Mayor’s Question Time yourself on a regular basis you would know how wrong that it.

Sunny misquoting for political purposes? Never…

http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/boris-says-no-water-cannon-might-spark-arms-race/

On this blog, the situation is made even clearer. Boris says” Using the ‘non-lethal weapon’, (water cannon) deployed to quell civil unrest in Northern Ireland, would ‘hand a victory to the minority who use violence. We have free, open systems where the police do not use that kind of technique or weapon,’

Sunny: “Only because he wanted to avoid the bad press. ”

I don’t think it’s just Boris who worries about the bad press.

It’s why the Metropolitan Police are mooting a proposal to ban political demonstrations in central London.

Those video clips of an attack on a student in a wheelchair and women students being beaten with batons don’t make for good public relations, nor do the reports about Alfie Meadows who needed brain surgery after being hit on the head.

The Met is still trying to recover a reputation after the fatal attack on Ian Tomlinson, a passing newspaper vendor, at the G20 demonstration last year:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/G20-Protest-Picture-Shows-Ian-Tomlinson-Had-Head-Injury-After-Being-Pushed-To-Ground-By-Police/Article/200904415268375

Some senior officers in the Met evidently want to consider water cannon to quell demonstrations:

“Commander Bob Broadhurst, of the Metropolitan Police, failed to rule out the use of the truck mounted hoses – which have only been previously seen on the streets of Northern Ireland.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338352/Police-say-Theresa-May-foolish-rule-water-cannon-use-riots.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The credibility of the British tradition of policing by consent is rapidly shrinking.

Bob B,

The credibility of the British tradition of policing by consent is rapidly shrinking.

Rubbish. There are some 36,000 police officers including Special Constables. God knows how many incidents there are a day. And how many go wrong? A tiny number.

“And how many go wrong? A tiny number.”

Try this account from the Daily Mail of what happened to Mark Sauders in 2008:

“Mark Saunders was shot dead at his home in Markham Square, South-West London, on May 6, 2008, after a five-hour stand-off with the police. He was hopelessly drunk when he was hit in the head and chest by five ­of the bullets fired by seven policemen ­stationed in nearby houses. . .

“Yesterday, the inquest was told that police were carrying more than 100 guns, including high-velocity rifles, 9mm Glock self-loading pistols and MP5 carbines, as well as Tasers and CS gas. A total of 59 armed officers were posted around the house.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1316398/Mark-Saunders-armed-drunk-deranged-But-wasnt-7-officer-shooting-overkill.html

And remember the tragedy of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell in 2005?

“The man shot dead by police at Stockwell Underground station yesterday morning had nothing to do with Thursday’s abortive London bomb attacks, Scotland Yard said tonight.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article547420.ece

@12 – Yes thats two. I think we can all agree that this would classify as a tiny number

Yes Bob, I am well aware of those two cases. Tragic, nonetheless a tiny number.

Let’s get some perspective:

In 2006, [Armed Response Vehicles] deployed 2,232 times in response to 11,725 calls to spontaneous firearms incidents.

According to an October 2005 article in The Independent, in the preceding 12 years, 30 people had been shot dead by police.

And remember the tragedy of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell in 2005?

Of course I do. Menezes is mentioned 203 times on my blog. I recall following the case very closely.

Bob,

It should be pointed out that the police cannot actually ban political protests in central London. They could possibly refuse to allow individual protests, but after a while someone might notice (an MP might ask ‘what happened to all those noisy students?’) and then they would have to explain their reasoning for stopping people doing something which everyone agrees they have a right to do. And I know ACPO has a book of excuses for just that, but even so.

“Yes Bob, I am well aware of those two cases. Tragic, nonetheless a tiny number.”

But clear evidence that a percentage if those serving in the Met are afflicted by homicidal inclinations – and the two cases amount to those where I could easily find the links to press reports or documentation

There was also the case in 1999 of Mr Stanley who was shot dead at a distance of 15 feet for carrying a table leg in a bag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley

Correction: “There are some 36,000 police officers including Special Constables”

Should of course read,

There are some 36,000 police officers in the Met including Special Constables

Bob B,

“Yes Bob, I am well aware of those two cases. Tragic, nonetheless a tiny number.”

But clear evidence that a percentage if those serving in the Met are afflicted by homicidal inclinations – and the two cases amount to those where I could easily find the links to press reports or documentation

30 people shot dead over 12 years, average of 2.5 a year.

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, THE POLICE ARE OUT OF CONTROL!

Bob,

But clear evidence that a percentage if those serving in the Met are afflicted by homicidal inclinations

In one of the cases you mentioned there was an armed man firing out of a window. In another, the officers were working on the assumption he was a potential suicide bomber. And in the third, it was thought he had a gun in a bag.

In two cases the information was wrong (but I suspect that is rarely the case – hence the headlines) whilst in the third there was a wierd media campaign to say the armed drunk who was firing indiscriminatly would have been no danger if allowed to sleep it off or something…

But in each case the police were acting according to information they thought was correct and reacted accordingly – it is not homicidal instict, but simple training. Armed police are trained to shoot if they feel themselves or innocent bystanders are placed in danger by the actions of armed suspects.

Unfortunately mistakes happen – and sometimes (de Menzies case) police try to cover them up, which is wrong – but I don’t think there is any particular reason to assume sustained police brutality.

What the idiot media has failed to point out (it’s clearly having difficulty with the plural of the word ‘cannon’) is that in riots abroad where water cannons, plastic bullets and tear gas are used – the protestors bring rocks, iron bars and petrol bombs.

If they want to turn London into a war zone – then bring out the cannons I say. It will only result in an escalation which will result in riots we see regularly in Greece and used to see regularly in Northern Ireland.

(Do they refer to them as ‘water canon’ because they don’t want to imply more than one will be used which might imply an overreaction?)

“It should be pointed out that the police cannot actually ban political protests in central London.”

They can legally ban marches (anywhere in the country), but not demonstrations. It’s the movement of the protestors, requiring traffic control etc, that the police are allowed to forbid.

They can also ban demonstrations within a certain area surrounding Parliament – I don’t think that part of SOCA has been repealed yet although both Tories and Lib Dems said it would be. They may of course have changed their minds since they started releasing unpopular policies and attracting noisy protestors.

@ Dibbler – hate to tell you this but cannon is the more usual plural of cannon, cannons is allowed but not superior:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0120240#m_en_gb0120240

They can also ban demonstrations within a certain area surrounding Parliament …

AIUI they can’t ban demonstrations.

The organiser of the demonstration is obliged to give six days notice to the Met. The Met must authorise that demonstration s134(2) but is entitled to set conditions for the purpose of preventing crime and disorder and hindrance to the operation of Parliament.

My inner pedant (that’s most of me) cannot resist the urge to say that Falco is correct.

Comment is unnecessary:

“Police have apologised for taking a 12-year-old boy out of lessons last week to question him about a planned picket outside David Cameron’s constituency office.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/16/police-apology-questioning-schoolboy-protest?CMP=twt_gu

We need to keep a public scoreboard of abuses going to ensure effective continuing accountability of the Met.

Watchman,

Unfortunately mistakes happen – and sometimes (de Menzies case) police try to cover them up, which is wrong – but I don’t think there is any particular reason to assume sustained police brutality.

Quite.

If in one year there are some 20,000 operations in which firearms are authorised (with presumably more than one firearms officer per operation) and the bodycount (while obviously tragic) is two or three, this doesn’t suggest to me a cause for concern about “homicidal inclinations”. But YMMV.

(That doesn’t mean there is no cause for concern about accountability and smears of the victims etc.)

Ukliberty theres close to 33,000 Met police including Soca the Met wants 36,000 by the Olympics and Peter Reynolds 75% of the polce at the priotest weren’t TSG
Its amazing people just find an article they agree with and then post a link saying its fact, Ian tomlisnon died of a heart attack not a fatal head wound