Police using choke holds on women.

[Fop 1]

Thought so.

 

You gave up easy in the end.

 

Not until we were bound, gagged, choke holded and kept for 4 days.

Self-gagged tbh, as soon as he asked to supply quotes. Obvious to all, including yourselves I suspect. Continue with the 'Lalala! I can't hear you stuff' if it makes you feel better by all means though

 

Like Fop already said once page 5.

 

You two need some practice and need to pay attention.

 

 

 

 

 

Although it's slightly irrelevant now as Chris has now said (page 12) he's not sure if someone shouldn't be arrested for doing nothing wrong - which is progress (for him).

 

People might take you seriously if you didn't make up arguments. If i say "I don't know if an individual deserved to be arrested" it does not equate to saying "I don't know if someone should be arrested when they've done nothing whatsoever wrong". I'm sure you see the difference but get a tingly feeling in your glans keeping a thread going by feigning complete ignorance. Hence your refusal to quote what I've actually said consistently through the entire thread.

 

So you DO think that someone should be arrested when they are doing absolutely nothing wrong then?

 

 

Yes or no will do.

 

No.

 

 

Good, so you eventually agree with Fop (and everyone else) and now that we've convinced you to back away from your prior fascist agenda all is well with the world.

 

 

(well except if you happen to be those women being brutalised by the police for no reason)

 

I said we agreed pages ago. Glad you've caught up at last.

 

 

That was only an attempted tactical agreement as you realised the fascist hole you were in, this is clearly an agreement where you realise you are broken and your belief patterns have been changed for the better. :aye:

[Happy Face 29]

Thought so.

 

You gave up easy in the end.

 

Not until we were bound, gagged, choke holded and kept for 4 days.

Self-gagged tbh, as soon as he asked to supply quotes. Obvious to all, including yourselves I suspect. Continue with the 'Lalala! I can't hear you stuff' if it makes you feel better by all means though

 

Like Fop already said once page 5.

 

You two need some practice and need to pay attention.

 

 

 

 

 

Although it's slightly irrelevant now as Chris has now said (page 12) he's not sure if someone shouldn't be arrested for doing nothing wrong - which is progress (for him).

 

People might take you seriously if you didn't make up arguments. If i say "I don't know if an individual deserved to be arrested" it does not equate to saying "I don't know if someone should be arrested when they've done nothing whatsoever wrong". I'm sure you see the difference but get a tingly feeling in your glans keeping a thread going by feigning complete ignorance. Hence your refusal to quote what I've actually said consistently through the entire thread.

 

So you DO think that someone should be arrested when they are doing absolutely nothing wrong then?

 

 

Yes or no will do.

 

No.

 

 

Good, so you eventually agree with Fop (and everyone else) and now that we've convinced you to back away from your prior fascist agenda all is well with the world.

 

 

(well except if you happen to be those women being brutalised by the police for no reason)

 

I said we agreed pages ago. Glad you've caught up at last.

 

 

That was only an attempted tactical agreement as you realised the fascist hole you were in, this is clearly an agreement where you realise you are broken and your belief patterns have been changed for the better. :aye:

 

No. We agree 100% on the principals and always have.

 

Our only differences are in this specific case, whether you can categorically say these women commited no crime, and should not have been arrested; and whether or not they go about their cause in the right way.

 

You've decided they couldn't possibly have been in the wrong on the basis of a short Guardian article and no charges being brought.

 

I've loooked into their history and their purpose and think they could possibly have broken the law (since it's what they encourage others to do).

 

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

Thought so.

 

You gave up easy in the end.

 

Not until we were bound, gagged, choke holded and kept for 4 days.

Self-gagged tbh, as soon as he asked to supply quotes. Obvious to all, including yourselves I suspect. Continue with the 'Lalala! I can't hear you stuff' if it makes you feel better by all means though

 

Like Fop already said once page 5.

 

You two need some practice and need to pay attention.

 

 

 

 

 

Although it's slightly irrelevant now as Chris has now said (page 12) he's not sure if someone shouldn't be arrested for doing nothing wrong - which is progress (for him).

 

People might take you seriously if you didn't make up arguments. If i say "I don't know if an individual deserved to be arrested" it does not equate to saying "I don't know if someone should be arrested when they've done nothing whatsoever wrong". I'm sure you see the difference but get a tingly feeling in your glans keeping a thread going by feigning complete ignorance. Hence your refusal to quote what I've actually said consistently through the entire thread.

 

So you DO think that someone should be arrested when they are doing absolutely nothing wrong then?

 

 

Yes or no will do.

 

No.

 

 

Good, so you eventually agree with Fop (and everyone else) and now that we've convinced you to back away from your prior fascist agenda all is well with the world.

 

 

(well except if you happen to be those women being brutalised by the police for no reason)

 

I said we agreed pages ago. Glad you've caught up at last.

 

 

That was only an attempted tactical agreement as you realised the fascist hole you were in, this is clearly an agreement where you realise you are broken and your belief patterns have been changed for the better. :aye:

 

No. We agree 100% on the principals and always have.

 

Our only differences are in this specific case, whether you can categorically say these women commited no crime, and should not have been arrested; and whether or not they go about their cause in the right way.

 

You've decided they couldn't possibly have been in the wrong on the basis of a short Guardian article and no charges being brought.

 

I've loooked into their history and their purpose and think they could possibly have broken the law (since it's what they encourage others to do).

 

Correct me if i'm wrong.

You really hate being label fascist don't you (especially when you've condemned yourself).

 

 

All charges were dropped - so you must be wrong (after all the unedited video would be more than enough proof would it not).

 

 

But even if they did commit some "crime" (even if asking a police officer for their ID number is illegal or photographing one is - which neither is), do you think their treatment was correct?

 

Bearing in mind even PoW's can't be treated as they were.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Fop

[Happy Face 29]

All charges were dropped - so you must be wrong (after all the unedited video would be more than enough proof would it not).

 

But even if they did commit some "crime" (even if asking a police officer for their ID number is illegal or photographing one is - which neither is), do you think their treatment was correct?

 

Bearing in mind even PoW's can't be treated as they were.

 

It's possible that they might have commited a crime that wasn't caught on camera.....given that their preferred (and self-confessed) crime of choice is to stop police from filming anything whatsoever.

 

I've said throughout, their treatment wasn't correct. Not sure why you keep suggesting otherwise.

[Fop 1]

I've said throughout, their treatment wasn't correct. Not sure why you keep suggesting otherwise.

 

 

Page 5 Your own words.

 

 

All charges were dropped - so you must be wrong (after all the unedited video would be more than enough proof would it not).

 

But even if they did commit some "crime" (even if asking a police officer for their ID number is illegal or photographing one is - which neither is), do you think their treatment was correct?

 

Bearing in mind even PoW's can't be treated as they were.

 

It's possible that they might have commited a crime that wasn't caught on camera.....given that their preferred (and self-confessed) crime of choice is to stop police from filming anything whatsoever.

 

They were arrested for assault and obstruction and for obstruction. An assault didn't occur (apart from on them) and neither of those thing were "obstruction" as vague as that maybe.

[Fop 1]

Fit Watch campaigners describe how they were arrested and bundled to the ground

 

Val Swain and Emily Apple, campaigners against surveillance of police forward intelligence teams, were held in custody for four days after challenging police officer over failure to display badge number

 

 

"Have you seen the Blues Brothers over there?" the police surveillance officer said. "Look – filming everybody else."

 

It was supposed to have been a routine day of protest for Val Swain and Emily Apple, but at 1.31pm on 8 August last year, moments after being spotted by the surveillance unit, they found this was to be no ordinary demonstration.

 

After challenging a police officer over his failure to display a badge number at a protest against the Kingsnorth power station in Kent, the two women were wrestled to the ground, handcuffed and placed in a police van. They were held in custody for four days, three of which were spent in HMP Bronzefield.

 

Swain, 43, was arrested for assault and obstruction and Apple,33, for obstruction. The charges were later dropped.

 

The arrests were caught on police surveillance footage obtained by the Guardian and will be submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Commission tomorrow in a complaint lodged by the solicitors firm Tuckers.

 

Swain, from Cardiff, and Apple, from Cornwall, believe they were unlawfully arrested and detained because they campaign for Fit Watch, a protest group opposed to police forward intelligence teams (Fits), the surveillance units that regularly monitor political activists and demonstrations and meetings.

 

Fit Watch seeks to "turn the tables" on police with a form guerrilla surveillance: activists film and photograph officers on duty surveillance and upload their details on to a blog.

 

They also attempt to impede police surveillance by placing banners and placards in front of cameras.

 

Senior officers argue that Fit units, pioneered by the Metropolitan police, are an essential tool for public order policing and help identify troublemakers at protests.

 

However, Fit techniques – criticised in a recent court of appeal ruling – infuriate protesters, who argue that they are used to harass and intimidate campaigners. Swain and Apple believe their attempts to monitor police meant they were unfairly targeted.

 

Between them, they say, they have been arrested for various offences at 11 protests since 2007, although they have always been acquitted or seen the charges against them dropped.

 

The pair were immediately spotted by police surveillance officers when they arrived at the Kingsnorth demonstration. Narrating the surveillance video, the officers called them the "Blue Brothers" in an apparent reference to their outfits.

 

"Got the Fit Watch people now coming out of the camp," the officer added as he moved the camera closer. "All dressed in black hoodies. Dark glasses."

 

His footage reveals that at least four of the officers – part of a team drafted in from West Yorkshire – were not displaying their badge numbers. It also recorded Apple asking one of the officer to reveal his badge number. The officer refused.

"Well you do actually have to tell me," Apple said. "If someone requests your number – if a member of the public requests your number – you do have to give your number."

 

She asked Swain to photograph the officer. "I'd like a picture of this officer so I can make a complaint," she said. "It's West Yorkshire police – no number."

 

As Swain lifted her camera, a second officer, who was not displaying his badge number, stood in her way and informed the women they would be searched. They offered no resistance but were wrestled to the ground seconds later.

 

A third Fit Watch campaigner, Geoff Cornock, a 52-year-old from Cardiff who was standing nearby, was also pushed to the floor and arrested for obstruction. He was released on bail the following day.

 

Cornock's charges were also dropped, and he is joining the women in their complaint to the IPCC.

 

Both Swain and Apple were pinned to the ground in restraint positions for around 15 minutes. Apple had her head pushed into the ground by an officer without a badge number. Moments later, the same officer placed one hand around her neck in a stranglehold position, apparently attempting to show her face to the police camera.

 

He then pressed his fingers on pressure points in her neck to move her across the road.

 

Several metres away, Swain was also being pinned to the ground. The footage captured her groaning in pain and telling an officer to stop standing on her foot. The camera panned down to show the officer's boot clamped on top of Swain's foot. The officer said: "I am not on your foot."

 

Told in passing that she was being arrested, Swain replied: "For what: taking a photograph?"

 

Later, the footage captured Swain complaining about her treatment. "You have no right to grab someone from inside the climate camp, drag them out here, and tell them that you are arresting them for obstruction," she said.

 

She was turned on her side while officers removed her shoes. Her legs were bound with black leg restraints before several officers carried her into back of a police van.

 

Apple claimed that, after the pair had been taken to a police station, officers refused her permission speak to a solicitor.

 

The following morning, Apple and Swain were remanded in custody to Bronzefield women's prison.

 

They allege police told magistrates that they feared the pair would cause "physical or mental injury" to officers if they were allowed out on bail.

 

"I am quite shocked that someone can end up in prison for simply taking a photograph," Swain said. "I have a home life. My children were expecting me home, my partner was expecting me home. My boss was expecting me to turn up to work. None of those things happened."

 

She said her incarceration contributed to her losing her job as a community development officer.

 

Apple, whose son was four when she was held, added: "It has got to the stage where every protest is so repressively policed that it's become impossible to have a voice on the streets."

 

The Kent police assistant chief constable, Andy Adams, said yesterday: "We recognise that people have made complaints, and we are dealing with these in accordance with our normal procedures.

 

"There is a judicial review under way and, during that process, Kent police is unable to comment on individual cases."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...y-apple-arrests

[Happy Face 29]

I've said throughout, their treatment wasn't correct. Not sure why you keep suggesting otherwise.

 

 

Page 5 Your own words.

 

You'll have to be more specific, all I can see on Page 5 is where I said the arrest was made...

 

"regretfully with too much force"

[Park Life 71]

It's light torture basically.

[Fop 1]

Predatory policing

 

As my arrest and imprisonment demonstrates, the preventative policing model is a licence to harass legitimate protesters

 

 

 

Fit Watch was formed in response to more than 10 years of harassment and intimidation of protesters by the forward intelligence teams (Fit). Employing a range of tactics from blocking police cameras to monitoring their activities, we knew it would make us more unpopular than we already were with the Fit. However, the stifling effect of their presence at protests and meetings meant it was a necessary step.

 

I first became aware of Fit in 2001. Fit officers were taking photographs outside meetings, and then greeting me by name in crowds of thousands of people. Before long, they were at every meeting, every demonstration, calling me by name, making derogatory comments, and following me long after a protest had finished.

 

During 2002, they arrested me four times in three months, raided my house, seized my personal diaries and tried very hard, but unsuccessfully, to have me remanded.

 

None of the charges came to court, and eventually I received compensation. However, I was driven so far over the edge I ended up drinking heavily to the point I broke down and was admitted to hospital, vomiting blood, on a drip and hallucinating cops in the place of paramedics.

 

It never occurred to me to challenge this policing – even ending up in hospital didn't make me realise we needed a collective response. And my experiences, although extreme, were by no means isolated. Many people had breakdowns, or simply withdrew from political activity because they couldn't deal with the levels of police harassment.

 

The police have always sought to justify their actions against me, and others like me, on the grounds we are the nasty protesters – the ones they warn about when they spin media stories about hardcore troublemakers arriving at climate camps. This subtext was made crystal clear at our bail hearing after the Kingsnorth incident – the crown prosecutor described us as "violent" and said the "police were anxious" we would go back to the camp, "create disorder" and "put people in fear of mental and physical injury". However, as the video shows, we did nothing other than try to monitor the policing operation.

 

As the dust settles from the G20, and various bodies compile their reports into public order policing, it is this arbitrary distinction between good and bad protesters that is likely to be drawn. The distinction is subjective, based on dubious assumptions and police "intelligence", details of which are near impossible to access and challenge.

 

I know I'm not a violent troublemaker. In simplistic terms, I believe a better world is possible, and that real changes – whether it be women winning the vote, the abolition of the poll tax or the fight against environmental destruction – only occur when people stand together, say no and have a direct impact. Refusing to accept the police's parameters for protest is not being a bad protester – it is an essential part of effective dissent.

 

While the preventative policing model remains – including use of Fit tactics, systematic stop and searches, kettling people for hours without access to food, water or toilets and baton charging anyone who dares leave – there will continue to be civil liberties abuses at protests. Arresting, harassing and imprisoning people because they might commit an offence is not acceptable whatever their political beliefs, and it is essential we stand together to resist this form of policing.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/li...lice-kingsnorth

 

 

Straight from the Chris Holt school of police public intimidation and "preventative" harassment policing.

[Fop 1]

I've said throughout, their treatment wasn't correct. Not sure why you keep suggesting otherwise.

 

 

Page 5 Your own words.

 

You'll have to be more specific, all I can see on Page 5 is where I said the arrest was made...

 

"regretfully with too much force"

 

Look harder.

 

 

 

 

It's light torture basically.

 

It is just plain torture really, especially when you look at how they target people.

 

It shows exactly why organisations like fitwatch are needed and indeed it shows that much stronger controls on the police are needed too (although frankly elected Chief Constables would probably get rid of this sort of policing in one swoop).

[Happy Face 29]

Straight from the Chris Holt school of police public intimidation and "preventative" harassment policing.

 

Not really, but you keep constructing Der Untertan.

[Fop 1]

Straight from the Chris Holt school of police public intimidation and "preventative" harassment policing.

 

Not really, but you keep constructing Der Untertan.

 

You prefer direct imprisonment? Or just straight forward execution?

[Isegrim 10024]

It's light torture basically.

And so is this thread.

[Fop 1]

Fit Watch campaigners describe how they were arrested and bundled to the ground

 

Val Swain and Emily Apple, campaigners against surveillance of police forward intelligence teams, were held in custody for four days after challenging police officer over failure to display badge number

 

 

"Have you seen the Blues Brothers over there?" the police surveillance officer said. "Look – filming everybody else."

 

It was supposed to have been a routine day of protest for Val Swain and Emily Apple, but at 1.31pm on 8 August last year, moments after being spotted by the surveillance unit, they found this was to be no ordinary demonstration.

 

After challenging a police officer over his failure to display a badge number at a protest against the Kingsnorth power station in Kent, the two women were wrestled to the ground, handcuffed and placed in a police van. They were held in custody for four days, three of which were spent in HMP Bronzefield.

 

Swain, 43, was arrested for assault and obstruction and Apple,33, for obstruction. The charges were later dropped.

 

The arrests were caught on police surveillance footage obtained by the Guardian and will be submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Commission tomorrow in a complaint lodged by the solicitors firm Tuckers.

 

Swain, from Cardiff, and Apple, from Cornwall, believe they were unlawfully arrested and detained because they campaign for Fit Watch, a protest group opposed to police forward intelligence teams (Fits), the surveillance units that regularly monitor political activists and demonstrations and meetings.

 

Fit Watch seeks to "turn the tables" on police with a form guerrilla surveillance: activists film and photograph officers on duty surveillance and upload their details on to a blog.

 

They also attempt to impede police surveillance by placing banners and placards in front of cameras.

 

Senior officers argue that Fit units, pioneered by the Metropolitan police, are an essential tool for public order policing and help identify troublemakers at protests.

 

However, Fit techniques – criticised in a recent court of appeal ruling – infuriate protesters, who argue that they are used to harass and intimidate campaigners. Swain and Apple believe their attempts to monitor police meant they were unfairly targeted.

 

Between them, they say, they have been arrested for various offences at 11 protests since 2007, although they have always been acquitted or seen the charges against them dropped.

 

The pair were immediately spotted by police surveillance officers when they arrived at the Kingsnorth demonstration. Narrating the surveillance video, the officers called them the "Blue Brothers" in an apparent reference to their outfits.

 

"Got the Fit Watch people now coming out of the camp," the officer added as he moved the camera closer. "All dressed in black hoodies. Dark glasses."

 

His footage reveals that at least four of the officers – part of a team drafted in from West Yorkshire – were not displaying their badge numbers. It also recorded Apple asking one of the officer to reveal his badge number. The officer refused.

"Well you do actually have to tell me," Apple said. "If someone requests your number – if a member of the public requests your number – you do have to give your number."

 

She asked Swain to photograph the officer. "I'd like a picture of this officer so I can make a complaint," she said. "It's West Yorkshire police – no number."

 

As Swain lifted her camera, a second officer, who was not displaying his badge number, stood in her way and informed the women they would be searched. They offered no resistance but were wrestled to the ground seconds later.

 

A third Fit Watch campaigner, Geoff Cornock, a 52-year-old from Cardiff who was standing nearby, was also pushed to the floor and arrested for obstruction. He was released on bail the following day.

 

Cornock's charges were also dropped, and he is joining the women in their complaint to the IPCC.

 

Both Swain and Apple were pinned to the ground in restraint positions for around 15 minutes. Apple had her head pushed into the ground by an officer without a badge number. Moments later, the same officer placed one hand around her neck in a stranglehold position, apparently attempting to show her face to the police camera.

 

He then pressed his fingers on pressure points in her neck to move her across the road.

 

Several metres away, Swain was also being pinned to the ground. The footage captured her groaning in pain and telling an officer to stop standing on her foot. The camera panned down to show the officer's boot clamped on top of Swain's foot. The officer said: "I am not on your foot."

 

Told in passing that she was being arrested, Swain replied: "For what: taking a photograph?"

 

Later, the footage captured Swain complaining about her treatment. "You have no right to grab someone from inside the climate camp, drag them out here, and tell them that you are arresting them for obstruction," she said.

 

She was turned on her side while officers removed her shoes. Her legs were bound with black leg restraints before several officers carried her into back of a police van.

 

Apple claimed that, after the pair had been taken to a police station, officers refused her permission speak to a solicitor.

 

The following morning, Apple and Swain were remanded in custody to Bronzefield women's prison.

 

They allege police told magistrates that they feared the pair would cause "physical or mental injury" to officers if they were allowed out on bail.

 

"I am quite shocked that someone can end up in prison for simply taking a photograph," Swain said. "I have a home life. My children were expecting me home, my partner was expecting me home. My boss was expecting me to turn up to work. None of those things happened."

 

She said her incarceration contributed to her losing her job as a community development officer.

 

Apple, whose son was four when she was held, added: "It has got to the stage where every protest is so repressively policed that it's become impossible to have a voice on the streets."

 

The Kent police assistant chief constable, Andy Adams, said yesterday: "We recognise that people have made complaints, and we are dealing with these in accordance with our normal procedures.

 

"There is a judicial review under way and, during that process, Kent police is unable to comment on individual cases."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...y-apple-arrests

 

This highlights another problem with the police - lies.

 

Whether it's lying to a judge about the "threat" someone poses, or lying about causing pain by standing on someone's foot it just shows how perfectly comfortable the police tend to be with it (indeed as some on here know only too well).

[The Fish 11080]

Fop, while you have made valid points (hidden amongst your ott rhetoric), this no longer reads like a man who is impassioned to take a stand, this reads like a bored person with a personal axe to grind with the establishment.

[Fop 1]

Fop, while you have made valid points (hidden amongst your ott rhetoric), this no longer reads like a man who is impassioned to take a stand, this reads like a bored person with a personal axe to grind with the establishment.

With your dad it undoubtedly would to you, but that is as completely irrelevant to the issues in this thread as your post.

 

 

Although in fairness Chris arguing himself into a fascist position (just to oppose Fop's view) does never get old.

[ChezGiven 0]

Only thing i can see on page 5 is fop calling HF, stupid, a moron, a coward and a fascist.

 

Think you picked the wrong page fop.

[Fop 1]

Last week, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said it would investigate an incident in which a man in Nottingham was caught on video apparently being repeatedly shocked as one officer appeared to punch him near the head."

 

 

Love the way it says near the head.

 

Probably in the throat or the back of the neck if they were trying to cause maximum pain with the least visible damage.

 

[Fop 1]

Only thing i can see on page 5 is fop calling HF, stupid, a moron, a coward and a fascist.

 

Think you picked the wrong page fop.

Obviously ignoring what you don't want to see and making up what you do. No surprise really, look again.

[Fop 1]

 

Effective policing Holtstyle.

[The Fish 11080]

So Fop, how often do you protest, make suggestions, actually do something?

[Guest alex]

It's light torture basically.

And so is this thread.

[Fop 1]

So Fop, how often do you protest, make suggestions, actually do something?

 

As much as you might want to emulated, it must be stressed there really there is more to life than just Fop.

[The Fish 11080]

So you don't then.

[Fop 1]

So you don't then.

Nice try, not as effective as waterboarding though.