Footage shows G20 death man push

[Guest alex]

Re: this lass - She's a bint but the policeman in question shouldn't have lost his temper basically. But she was asking for it - quite literally in the sense that she wants to make a name for herself by the sounds of it. And I'm not one to think the British police are beyond reproach by any means but the actions of some officers in difficult and pressured circumstances shouldn't colour the attitude of people to the Police as a whole. Sadly though, for many people, that will be the case.

 

 

I agree but they aren't helping themselves very much - there is a case in the Guardian where 2 coppers deleted photos from an Austrian tourist's camera (the bloke was a weird bus/transport spotter) quoting anti-terror laws. Their spokesman then says quite rightly that they don't have the right to do this.

 

This means either they've been wrongly briefed by their superiors (either through genuine mistake or malicious intent) or they honestly think that the new laws give them carte blanche to act like twats.

 

I think getting things out in the open and having a good look at how they do things is overdue - I think what these incidents can do in a positive way is to stop the "unquestioning respect" that a lot of British people have for authority.

 

I'm actually much more worried about the obvious contempt a lot of people have for authority, but that's another thread. If these two cases are the worst things that have happened, I'm pretty satisfied tbh.

I think you're both sort of right. Unfortunately I think there's respect for the wrong things (or apathy anyway) and disrespect for the wrong things. Many young kids, for example, have no fear or respect for the police (not saying that should be unquestioning), probably because they know there's very little the police can do for minor stuff combined with no respect being instilled in the home. On the other hand you have government measures in the name of anti-terror laws which not enough people (imo) do question.

[Fop 1]

Ultimate in cat among pigeons:

 

New PM

 

 

They all bend to Fop's will in the end.

 

 

Tomlinson officer questioned on suspicion of manslaughter

Probably as much manslaughter as say pushing/punching someone over and giving them a fatal brain bleed (which someone was convicted of today come to think of it).

 

Hardly.

 

FFS Fop what's up with your reasoning? That's when it was being reported as a heart attack and he wasn't being charged with anything serious. Now things are different and they are. Unless you're claiming some foresight into the man's second post mortem, what's your point?

 

If his death is directly attributable to the policeman's violence, of course it's manslaughter.

 

Again only in the context of direct legal proof, whether he died later of a bleed/abdominal haemorrhage (they can be brought on by stress or "just happen" too , not just occur through impacts, of course) or a heart attack, the cause of death in both cases was still the same.

 

 

Fop does like how you've changed your tune from "he's done nothing wrong" to "hang him" though.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Fop

[Fop 1]

I've actually seen the video of the lass properly now as opposed to just seeing the bit where she was struck with the baton and I hope the copper gets sacked.

 

[Guest alex]

I've actually seen the video of the lass properly now as opposed to just seeing the bit where she was struck with the baton and I hope the copper gets sacked.

 

I already said I thought he was in the wrong anyway Mr Tedium

[Fop 1]

I think you're both sort of right. Unfortunately I think there's respect for the wrong things (or apathy anyway) and disrespect for the wrong things. Many young kids, for example, have no fear or respect for the police (not saying that should be unquestioning), probably because they know there's very little the police can do for minor stuff combined with no respect being instilled in the home.

 

That's a big problem and in a way tends to lead Governments too:

 

On the other hand you have government measures in the name of anti-terror laws which not enough people (imo) do question.

 

As the Government grabs for more and more general power rather trying to properly enforce what it already has.

 

Of course in many ways the police don't help themselves with how they act, they seem to have forgotten that the single strongest weapon in a police forces arsenal is the good will of the people they are there to protect and help (not crush and outwit).

 

Although again maybe the prior helps develop the former, as they are used to dealing with people that play the system and often failing to "get" them, and see someone that doesn't know how to as an easy target.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is sort of what worries me most about these two instances, not the two acts of violence (although neither should have happened), but that they police went there with identities and badge numbers covers, so obviously knowing they would be doing things they shouldn't be doing and not wanting to be identified doing it.

[Fop 1]

I've actually seen the video of the lass properly now as opposed to just seeing the bit where she was struck with the baton and I hope the copper gets sacked.

 

I already said I thought he was in the wrong anyway Mr Tedium

 

[Fop 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8005390.stm

 

Police going to war and the protesters just well protesting.

[Renton 20414]

Ultimate in cat among pigeons:

 

New PM

 

 

They all bend to Fop's will in the end.

 

 

Tomlinson officer questioned on suspicion of manslaughter

Probably as much manslaughter as say pushing/punching someone over and giving them a fatal brain bleed (which someone was convicted of today come to think of it).

 

Hardly.

 

FFS Fop what's up with your reasoning? That's when it was being reported as a heart attack and he wasn't being charged with anything serious. Now things are different and they are. Unless you're claiming some foresight into the man's second post mortem, what's your point?

 

If his death is directly attributable to the policeman's violence, of course it's manslaughter.

 

Again only in the context of direct legal proof, whether he died later of a bleed/abdominal haemorrhage (they can be brought on by stress or "just happen" too , not just occur through impacts, of course) or a heart attack, the cause of death in both cases was still the same.

 

 

Fop does like how you've changed your tune from "he's done nothing wrong" to "hang him" though.

 

That's because I change my opinion according to the available evidence Fop, unlike you who have to dogmatically stick by his guns to 'prove' you are right no matter what facts emerge (or opinion from people who know what they are talking about), usually making yourself look like a complete fool in the process.

 

Well done again though for going to great lengths to show you really don't have the first clue about jurisprudence. Please don't bore me with your ignorance again though.

[Renton 20414]

Which is sort of what worries me most about these two instances, not the two acts of violence (although neither should have happened), but that they police went there with identities and badge numbers covers, so obviously knowing they would be doing things they shouldn't be doing and not wanting to be identified doing it.

 

 

That worked well then. Ridiculous.

[TheMoog 0]

Fucking hell, have you seen the pic of that lass? It's made a right mess of her face hasn't it!

 

Deserves what she got, if she didn't want a slap she shouldn't have been there - getting Max Clifford involved for one reason only, she's scum.

[Fop 1]

Ultimate in cat among pigeons:

 

New PM

 

 

They all bend to Fop's will in the end.

 

 

Tomlinson officer questioned on suspicion of manslaughter

Probably as much manslaughter as say pushing/punching someone over and giving them a fatal brain bleed (which someone was convicted of today come to think of it).

 

Hardly.

 

FFS Fop what's up with your reasoning? That's when it was being reported as a heart attack and he wasn't being charged with anything serious. Now things are different and they are. Unless you're claiming some foresight into the man's second post mortem, what's your point?

 

If his death is directly attributable to the policeman's violence, of course it's manslaughter.

 

Again only in the context of direct legal proof, whether he died later of a bleed/abdominal haemorrhage (they can be brought on by stress or "just happen" too , not just occur through impacts, of course) or a heart attack, the cause of death in both cases was still the same.

 

 

Fop does like how you've changed your tune from "he's done nothing wrong" to "hang him" though.

That's because I change my opinion according to the available evidence Fop, unlike you who have to dogmatically stick by his guns to 'prove' you are right no matter what facts emerge (or opinion from people who know what they are talking about), usually making yourself look like a complete fool in the process.

 

Well done again though for going to great lengths to show you really don't have the first clue about jurisprudence. Please don't bore me with your ignorance again though.

 

You change your opinion by how much of a tit you've been made to look, not something to boast about.

 

 

Which is sort of what worries me most about these two instances, not the two acts of violence (although neither should have happened), but that they police went there with identities and badge numbers covers, so obviously knowing they would be doing things they shouldn't be doing and not wanting to be identified doing it.

 

 

That worked well then. Ridiculous.

 

It's is ridiculous that they try to do it, yes. And completely wrong too.

 

Although without video evidence it would have worked well..... guess we need even more CCTV (which didn't "exist" there for a while )

[Fop 1]

Fucking hell, have you seen the pic of that lass? It's made a right mess of her face hasn't it!

 

Deserves what she got, if she didn't want a slap she shouldn't have been there - getting Max Clifford involved for one reason only, she's scum.

 

, it's like women going out in skimpy clothes then getting raped, police should rape any they see and teach them a lesson.

[Fop 1]

Police ‘should be punished for covering up ID’

Nicholas Cecil and Kiran Randhawa

17.04.09

Look here too

* Can I have your number please, officer?

* Identity numbers must be on show at all times

 

MET commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson was told today he must discipline officers who have defied orders to identify themselves.

 

Boris Johnson's deputy mayor Kit Malthouse called for those who fail to wear their shoulder numbers to face disciplinary action as the Standard revealed a constable with his identity number concealed.

 

The officer, a constable trained in first aid, was directly defying Sir Paul's order that they should be worn at all times after riot police at the G20 protests hid their badges.

 

Scotland Yard said it was trying to track down

the officer seen in Parliament Square last night by an Evening Standard photographer. He refused repeated requests to identify himself and only co-operated after a sergeant intervened. His superiors are now likely to be questioned over their conduct as well.

 

Mr Malthouse said: “The policy of the Met Police is very clear. The public have the right to be able to identify any uniformed police officer and so badges should be worn at all times. We support the Commissioner's decision to hold officers to account when they purposely conceal their identity.”

 

The Home Office also criticised officers who fail to wear their epaulettes, insisting the “public has a right to be able to identify” them.

 

A Home Office spokesman said: “We welcome the Commissioner's statement that all uniformed police officers should be identifiable at all times by their shoulder identification numbers, and wholly agree that the public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officers while performing their duties.”

 

A Yard spokesman said: “Where provided, epaulettes with identifying letters and numerals or insignia of rank must be worn and must be correct and visible at all times.

 

“It is the responsibility of all police officers, and their supervisors, to ensure this policy is followed.”

 

But there was no statement from the commissioner, who is now facing a mounting crisis over his leadership.

 

A member of the Metropolitan Police Authority said the problem of officers failing to wear their shoulder numbers had been going on “for some time” and “serious questions” will be raised over the issue.

 

Cindy Butts said: “I see no good reason why they should obscure their numbers from members of the public.

 

“We have pushed for the Met to have officers wear their names on their uniforms so at the very least they should be wearing the shoulder numbers.”

 

She added: “This has been an issue that's been going on for some time. The Met need to explain why this is happening and I certainly will be putting those questions to them.”

 

Today there were calls for the officer's immediate suspension and more questions over Sir Paul's leadership of the force, already engulfed in crisis since the death of Ian Tomlinson, 47, who had a heart attack during the G20 riots after being pushed and struck with a baton by a masked officer.

 

Senior politicians warned there is no place in Britain for “secret police”.

 

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: “The police just can't take their numbers off because they are in difficult policing situations. In the end, if there are complaints, it will just make matters worse for them.”

 

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne added: “Sir Paul Stephenson has made it clear that no British officer should be ashamed of their uniform or their identification. It now looks as if his orders are being flouted. There is no place for secret police in Britain.”

 

Another MPA member, Jenny Jones, said: “These officers need to be disciplined. There needs to be a clear signal that we won't stand for it.”

 

Miss Jones, a Green Party member of the Assembly, called for an inquiry into those not following guidelines.

 

She said: “It shows that there is something systemically wrong within the Met that officers think they can openly disobey orders and get away with it.

 

“This sort of behaviour by officers has been going on for so long but the death of Ian Tomlinson has certainly changed things.”

 

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said the officer in Parliament Square may have “forgotten” to identify himself.

 

The officer, part of a team securing the Tamil protests outside the House of Commons, where hundreds of demonstrators are campaigning against the Sri Lankan government's offensive and alleged human rights abuses, also refused to identify himself when asked.

 

He only put on the epaulettes when a Territorial Support Group sergeant intervened after a complaint was made.

 

The photographer who spotted the infringement said: “He wasn't wearing his epaulettes and refused to give me his number even though I asked three times. It is not good enough, especially in light of what the Commissioner said on Wednesday — you'd think they would be extra vigilant now.”

 

A Yard spokesman said the officer did identify himself in the end. He added: “The problem is when the officers change their uniforms and forget to put on their shoulder badges. This was probably the case here.”

 

Sir Paul has said a full-scale inquiry would be launched into riot police tactics after the death of newspaper seller Mr Tomlinson and video footage revealed a Territorial Support Group sergeant striking a female protester at the G20 protests.

 

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: “There is no place for secret police in Britain. Failure to show identification is a slippery slope towards a police state.”

 

Former shadow home secretary David Davis warned that officers who concealed their identification would be suspected of planning to do something in breach of the standard of conduct. He said: “If an officer deliberately hides a number, then he is expecting that being identified will give him a problem.”

 

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: “All Londoners should welcome the new Met commissioner's unequivocal statement that uniformed officers must display their identity numbers at all times.”

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art....do?expand=true

[Renton 20414]

You change your opinion by how much of a tit you've been made to look, not something to boast about.

 

I'm not boasting about anything, had the diagnosis of heart attack stood, so would my opinion, as would that of the legal community. It's people that won't change their opinions regardless of emerging evidence that are tits imo.

 

Fop, in all seriousness you really don't seem to have the first clue about jurisprudence. But, in any case, I get the impression (ever so slightly) you don't like the British legal system or its enforcement. Out of interest, are there any examplary states you think we should aspire to?

 

My opinion is we have the best police force and legal system in the world fwiw.

[Renton 20414]

Police ‘should be punished for covering up ID’

Nicholas Cecil and Kiran Randhawa

17.04.09

Look here too

* Can I have your number please, officer?

* Identity numbers must be on show at all times

 

MET commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson was told today he must discipline officers who have defied orders to identify themselves.

 

Boris Johnson's deputy mayor Kit Malthouse called for those who fail to wear their shoulder numbers to face disciplinary action as the Standard revealed a constable with his identity number concealed.

 

The officer, a constable trained in first aid, was directly defying Sir Paul's order that they should be worn at all times after riot police at the G20 protests hid their badges.

 

Scotland Yard said it was trying to track down

the officer seen in Parliament Square last night by an Evening Standard photographer. He refused repeated requests to identify himself and only co-operated after a sergeant intervened. His superiors are now likely to be questioned over their conduct as well.

 

Mr Malthouse said: “The policy of the Met Police is very clear. The public have the right to be able to identify any uniformed police officer and so badges should be worn at all times. We support the Commissioner's decision to hold officers to account when they purposely conceal their identity.”

 

The Home Office also criticised officers who fail to wear their epaulettes, insisting the “public has a right to be able to identify” them.

 

A Home Office spokesman said: “We welcome the Commissioner's statement that all uniformed police officers should be identifiable at all times by their shoulder identification numbers, and wholly agree that the public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officers while performing their duties.”

 

A Yard spokesman said: “Where provided, epaulettes with identifying letters and numerals or insignia of rank must be worn and must be correct and visible at all times.

 

“It is the responsibility of all police officers, and their supervisors, to ensure this policy is followed.”

 

But there was no statement from the commissioner, who is now facing a mounting crisis over his leadership.

 

A member of the Metropolitan Police Authority said the problem of officers failing to wear their shoulder numbers had been going on “for some time” and “serious questions” will be raised over the issue.

 

Cindy Butts said: “I see no good reason why they should obscure their numbers from members of the public.

 

“We have pushed for the Met to have officers wear their names on their uniforms so at the very least they should be wearing the shoulder numbers.”

 

She added: “This has been an issue that's been going on for some time. The Met need to explain why this is happening and I certainly will be putting those questions to them.”

 

Today there were calls for the officer's immediate suspension and more questions over Sir Paul's leadership of the force, already engulfed in crisis since the death of Ian Tomlinson, 47, who had a heart attack during the G20 riots after being pushed and struck with a baton by a masked officer.

 

Senior politicians warned there is no place in Britain for “secret police”.

 

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: “The police just can't take their numbers off because they are in difficult policing situations. In the end, if there are complaints, it will just make matters worse for them.”

 

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne added: “Sir Paul Stephenson has made it clear that no British officer should be ashamed of their uniform or their identification. It now looks as if his orders are being flouted. There is no place for secret police in Britain.”

 

Another MPA member, Jenny Jones, said: “These officers need to be disciplined. There needs to be a clear signal that we won't stand for it.”

 

Miss Jones, a Green Party member of the Assembly, called for an inquiry into those not following guidelines.

 

She said: “It shows that there is something systemically wrong within the Met that officers think they can openly disobey orders and get away with it.

 

“This sort of behaviour by officers has been going on for so long but the death of Ian Tomlinson has certainly changed things.”

 

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said the officer in Parliament Square may have “forgotten” to identify himself.

 

The officer, part of a team securing the Tamil protests outside the House of Commons, where hundreds of demonstrators are campaigning against the Sri Lankan government's offensive and alleged human rights abuses, also refused to identify himself when asked.

 

He only put on the epaulettes when a Territorial Support Group sergeant intervened after a complaint was made.

 

The photographer who spotted the infringement said: “He wasn't wearing his epaulettes and refused to give me his number even though I asked three times. It is not good enough, especially in light of what the Commissioner said on Wednesday — you'd think they would be extra vigilant now.”

 

A Yard spokesman said the officer did identify himself in the end. He added: “The problem is when the officers change their uniforms and forget to put on their shoulder badges. This was probably the case here.”

 

Sir Paul has said a full-scale inquiry would be launched into riot police tactics after the death of newspaper seller Mr Tomlinson and video footage revealed a Territorial Support Group sergeant striking a female protester at the G20 protests.

 

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: “There is no place for secret police in Britain. Failure to show identification is a slippery slope towards a police state.”

 

Former shadow home secretary David Davis warned that officers who concealed their identification would be suspected of planning to do something in breach of the standard of conduct. He said: “If an officer deliberately hides a number, then he is expecting that being identified will give him a problem.”

 

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: “All Londoners should welcome the new Met commissioner's unequivocal statement that uniformed officers must display their identity numbers at all times.”

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art....do?expand=true

 

Covering up their ID numbers is obviously wrong, aye. Also pretty pointless given the preponderance of CCTV and mobile video cameras.

 

Evidence they did this deliberately to commit illegal acts? That's at least debatable.

[Fop 1]

You change your opinion by how much of a tit you've been made to look, not something to boast about.

 

I'm not boasting about anything, had the diagnosis of heart attack stood, so would my opinion, as would that of the legal community. It's people that won't change their opinions regardless of emerging evidence that are tits imo.

 

 

Heh Fop loves your little Rentions .

 

 

 

Fop, in all seriousness you really don't seem to have the first clue about jurisprudence. But, in any case, I get the impression (ever so slightly) you don't like the British legal system or its enforcement. Out of interest, are there any examplary states you think we should aspire to?

 

My opinion is we have the best police force and legal system in the world fwiw.

 

 

Are you now saying anything is "ok" so long as there are states worse than the UK?

 

 

 

A video has been posted on YouTube showing a G20 protester challenging a City of London police inspector to reveal his badge number. This is a full transcript of the exchange:

 

Protester: Can I have your number then please, sir?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: Say again?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: No, could I have your number please?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: OK - you know it's an offence for you not to identify yourself at least by your number. You don't have to give me your name, but you do have to give me your number. You realise that don't you?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: You know it's a little thing called transparency. It's so people like you can't break the law like you did yesterday. It's so we can identify you when we want to bring cases against lying police officers. Do you understand that?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: Well I know what Bishopsgate police station is, but what is your ...

 

Officer: If you go there then you'll be able to find out who I am.

 

Protester: What - do you expect me to stand outside and wait? No. Identify yourself by your police number.

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Fop

[Fop 1]

Covering up their ID numbers is obviously wrong, aye. Also pretty pointless given the preponderance of CCTV and mobile video cameras.

 

Given they denied there was any CCTV covering the areas for several days, before having to admit there actually was (because 3rd parties were presenting irrefutable evidence there was) they've almost got that one covered.

 

Not to mention that without ID numbers (and even with) never mind in identical uniforms masks and scarves it can be very difficult to identify individuals with CCTV quality footage.

 

 

 

As for video cameras, as already mentioned they already do completely illegally seize and delete such things when they can.

 

 

 

 

Evidence they did this deliberately to commit illegal acts? That's at least debatable.

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

 

Why else would they do it?

Edited April 18, 2009 by Fop

[Renton 20414]

No way I can be arsed to download whatever that is Fop, especially presuming it's your idea of a joke. ( etc)

 

Are you now saying anything is "ok" so long as there are states worse than the UK?

 

Classic Fop, answering a question with a question. The answer to yours is no, of course not. Now will you answer mine?

[Park Life 71]

Police ‘should be punished for covering up ID’

Nicholas Cecil and Kiran Randhawa

17.04.09

Look here too

* Can I have your number please, officer?

* Identity numbers must be on show at all times

 

MET commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson was told today he must discipline officers who have defied orders to identify themselves.

 

Boris Johnson's deputy mayor Kit Malthouse called for those who fail to wear their shoulder numbers to face disciplinary action as the Standard revealed a constable with his identity number concealed.

 

The officer, a constable trained in first aid, was directly defying Sir Paul's order that they should be worn at all times after riot police at the G20 protests hid their badges.

 

Scotland Yard said it was trying to track down

the officer seen in Parliament Square last night by an Evening Standard photographer. He refused repeated requests to identify himself and only co-operated after a sergeant intervened. His superiors are now likely to be questioned over their conduct as well.

 

Mr Malthouse said: “The policy of the Met Police is very clear. The public have the right to be able to identify any uniformed police officer and so badges should be worn at all times. We support the Commissioner's decision to hold officers to account when they purposely conceal their identity.”

 

The Home Office also criticised officers who fail to wear their epaulettes, insisting the “public has a right to be able to identify” them.

 

A Home Office spokesman said: “We welcome the Commissioner's statement that all uniformed police officers should be identifiable at all times by their shoulder identification numbers, and wholly agree that the public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officers while performing their duties.”

 

A Yard spokesman said: “Where provided, epaulettes with identifying letters and numerals or insignia of rank must be worn and must be correct and visible at all times.

 

“It is the responsibility of all police officers, and their supervisors, to ensure this policy is followed.”

 

But there was no statement from the commissioner, who is now facing a mounting crisis over his leadership.

 

A member of the Metropolitan Police Authority said the problem of officers failing to wear their shoulder numbers had been going on “for some time” and “serious questions” will be raised over the issue.

 

Cindy Butts said: “I see no good reason why they should obscure their numbers from members of the public.

 

“We have pushed for the Met to have officers wear their names on their uniforms so at the very least they should be wearing the shoulder numbers.”

 

She added: “This has been an issue that's been going on for some time. The Met need to explain why this is happening and I certainly will be putting those questions to them.”

 

Today there were calls for the officer's immediate suspension and more questions over Sir Paul's leadership of the force, already engulfed in crisis since the death of Ian Tomlinson, 47, who had a heart attack during the G20 riots after being pushed and struck with a baton by a masked officer.

 

Senior politicians warned there is no place in Britain for “secret police”.

 

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: “The police just can't take their numbers off because they are in difficult policing situations. In the end, if there are complaints, it will just make matters worse for them.”

 

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne added: “Sir Paul Stephenson has made it clear that no British officer should be ashamed of their uniform or their identification. It now looks as if his orders are being flouted. There is no place for secret police in Britain.”

 

Another MPA member, Jenny Jones, said: “These officers need to be disciplined. There needs to be a clear signal that we won't stand for it.”

 

Miss Jones, a Green Party member of the Assembly, called for an inquiry into those not following guidelines.

 

She said: “It shows that there is something systemically wrong within the Met that officers think they can openly disobey orders and get away with it.

 

“This sort of behaviour by officers has been going on for so long but the death of Ian Tomlinson has certainly changed things.”

 

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said the officer in Parliament Square may have “forgotten” to identify himself.

 

The officer, part of a team securing the Tamil protests outside the House of Commons, where hundreds of demonstrators are campaigning against the Sri Lankan government's offensive and alleged human rights abuses, also refused to identify himself when asked.

 

He only put on the epaulettes when a Territorial Support Group sergeant intervened after a complaint was made.

 

The photographer who spotted the infringement said: “He wasn't wearing his epaulettes and refused to give me his number even though I asked three times. It is not good enough, especially in light of what the Commissioner said on Wednesday — you'd think they would be extra vigilant now.”

 

A Yard spokesman said the officer did identify himself in the end. He added: “The problem is when the officers change their uniforms and forget to put on their shoulder badges. This was probably the case here.”

 

Sir Paul has said a full-scale inquiry would be launched into riot police tactics after the death of newspaper seller Mr Tomlinson and video footage revealed a Territorial Support Group sergeant striking a female protester at the G20 protests.

 

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: “There is no place for secret police in Britain. Failure to show identification is a slippery slope towards a police state.”

 

Former shadow home secretary David Davis warned that officers who concealed their identification would be suspected of planning to do something in breach of the standard of conduct. He said: “If an officer deliberately hides a number, then he is expecting that being identified will give him a problem.”

 

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: “All Londoners should welcome the new Met commissioner's unequivocal statement that uniformed officers must display their identity numbers at all times.”

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art....do?expand=true

 

2 weeks suspended without pay should stop that.

[Happy Face 29]

Although without video evidence it would have worked well..... guess we need even more CCTV (which didn't "exist" there for a while )

 

 

ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE ALERT!!

 

ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE ALERT!!

 

 

Make your mind up numbnuts.

[ewerk 29482]

A video has been posted on YouTube showing a G20 protester challenging a City of London police inspector to reveal his badge number. This is a full transcript of the exchange:

 

Protester: Can I have your number then please, sir?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: Say again?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: No, could I have your number please?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: OK - you know it's an offence for you not to identify yourself at least by your number. You don't have to give me your name, but you do have to give me your number. You realise that don't you?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: You know it's a little thing called transparency. It's so people like you can't break the law like you did yesterday. It's so we can identify you when we want to bring cases against lying police officers. Do you understand that?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: Well I know what Bishopsgate police station is, but what is your ...

 

Officer: If you go there then you'll be able to find out who I am.

 

Protester: What - do you expect me to stand outside and wait? No. Identify yourself by your police number.

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Strange how you cut off the bit at the end of the article stating that police inspectors (as this officer was) do not display their collar numbers. An oversight I'm sure.

[Fop 1]

No way I can be arsed to download whatever that is Fop, especially presuming it's your idea of a joke. ( etc)

 

Are you now saying anything is "ok" so long as there are states worse than the UK?

 

Classic Fop, answering a question with a question. The answer to yours is no, of course not. Now will you answer mine?

 

So what's the basis of your question?

 

It makes no sense unless you believe that, which you claim you don't.

[Fop 1]

Although without video evidence it would have worked well..... guess we need even more CCTV (which didn't "exist" there for a while )

 

 

ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE ALERT!!

 

ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE ALERT!!

 

 

Make your mind up numbnuts.

 

Learn to read (between the lines), pooey pants.

[Fop 1]

A video has been posted on YouTube showing a G20 protester challenging a City of London police inspector to reveal his badge number. This is a full transcript of the exchange:

 

Protester: Can I have your number then please, sir?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: Say again?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: No, could I have your number please?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: OK - you know it's an offence for you not to identify yourself at least by your number. You don't have to give me your name, but you do have to give me your number. You realise that don't you?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: You know it's a little thing called transparency. It's so people like you can't break the law like you did yesterday. It's so we can identify you when we want to bring cases against lying police officers. Do you understand that?

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Protester: Well I know what Bishopsgate police station is, but what is your ...

 

Officer: If you go there then you'll be able to find out who I am.

 

Protester: What - do you expect me to stand outside and wait? No. Identify yourself by your police number.

 

Officer: Bishopsgate police station.

 

Strange how you cut off the bit at the end of the article stating that police inspectors (as this officer was) do not display their collar numbers. An oversight I'm sure.

 

What bit at the end? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...icer/article.do

 

 

The comments?

 

 

Do you mean?

 

Police inspectors don't have identification numbers. They have names! Quite why this inspector replied in the manner he did is bizarre. I can only suppose he was sick and tired of this constant questioning by protestors the only purpose of which seems to be to annoy and waste time.

 

Which untrue, as higher ranking officers do still have identification numbers (depending on where they are serving - the Met has a different system to most every other UK force), but likely won't have them on display them as a matter of course (although as a matter of course they won't be in a position where the public need them to be able to identify them).

 

However when they are out and in the public's face that is a different matter, especially given the policy below:

 

 

“The policy of the Met Police is very clear. The public have the right to be able to identify any uniformed police officer and so badges should be worn at all times. We support the Commissioner's decision to hold officers to account when they purposely conceal their identity.”

 

At best it's incredibly hypocrisy, at worst it is breaking their own rules.

[ewerk 29482]

Apologies Foptit, I thought you had taken it from the Guardian website. Try and post the source in future.

 

The bit at the end was:

Inspectors typically do not wear badge numbers, but display two pips on their shoulder.

 

Also, do police have to identify themselves? I thought it was only their collar number (for constables and sergeants) or if they were performing an arrest or search?