Police using choke holds on women.

[Fop 1]

Fop took all the humour out of it.

FYP.

 

You think it's funny someone died for no reason?

[The Fish 11080]

Fop took all the humour out of it.

FYP.

 

You think it's funny someone died for no reason?

 

Often it's hilarious.

[Fop 1]

Fop took all the humour out of it.

FYP.

 

You think it's funny someone died for no reason?

 

Often it's hilarious.

 

The police seem to think so.

[The Fish 11080]

Fop took all the humour out of it.

FYP.

 

You think it's funny someone died for no reason?

 

Often it's hilarious.

 

The police seem to think so.

 

So do other members of the human race

[Fop 1]

Fop took all the humour out of it.

FYP.

 

You think it's funny someone died for no reason?

 

Often it's hilarious.

 

The police seem to think so.

 

So do other members of the human race

 

Like Alex. And yourself?

[The Fish 11080]

Fop took all the humour out of it.

FYP.

 

You think it's funny someone died for no reason?

 

Often it's hilarious.

 

The police seem to think so.

 

So do other members of the human race

 

Like Alex. And yourself?

 

I, personally, fell off my chair howling with laughter at the plight of some poor bugger being escorted off the mortal coil. It's simply a moment of joy that I'll cling to forever more.

[Guest alex]

Fop took all the humour out of it.

FYP.

 

You think it's funny someone died for no reason?

Not like you to let the Old Bill off the hook so easily.

[Fop 1]

I, personally, fell off my chair howling with laughter at the plight of some poor bugger being escorted off the mortal coil. It's simply a moment of joy that I'll cling to forever more.

 

Just imagine if they'd sworn at him!

 

Fop took all the humour out of it.

FYP.

 

You think it's funny someone died for no reason?

Not like you to let the Old Bill off the hook so easily.

 

Actually you're right it was in fact doubly unnecessary (and not funny).

 

Why cops should trust the wisdom of the crowds

 

* 17 July 2009 by Michael Bond

* Magazine issue 2717. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

 

THE protests that took place on the streets of London on the eve of the G20 summit in April lived up to many people's expectations. Around 2000 protestors turned up, and were heavily marshalled by police. There was a bit of trouble, but the police tactics - specifically, the decision to corral the entire crowd into a small area near the Bank of England, an approach known as "kettling" - kept a lid on the violence.

 

That, at least, is the official version of events, and it reflects a belief about crowds that is shared by police, governments and to a large degree the general public across the world: that they are hotbeds of trouble and must be contained. Trouble is seen as especially likely when something goes wrong at a large gathering. Under such circumstances, the expectation is that the crowd will lose its head and all hell will break loose.

 

The "unruly mob" concept is usually taken as read and used as the basis for crowd control measures and evacuation procedures across the world. Yet it is almost entirely a myth. Research into how people behave at demonstrations, sports events, music festivals and other mass gatherings shows not only that crowds nearly always act in a highly rational way, but also that when facing an emergency, people in a crowd are more likely to cooperate than panic. Paradoxically, it is often actions such as kettling that lead to violence breaking out. Often, the best thing authorities can do is leave a crowd to its own devices.

 

"In many ways, crowds are the solution," says psychologist Stephen Reicher, who studies group behaviour at the University of St Andrews, UK. Rather than being prone to irrational behaviour and violence, members of a crowd undergo a kind of identity shift that drives them to act in the best interests of themselves and everyone around them. This identity shift is often strongest in times of danger or threat. "The 'mad mob' is not an explanation, but a fantasy," says Reicher.

 

All this has profound implications for policing and the management of public events. "The classic view of crowd psychology, which is still widespread, talks about the loss of selfhood, leaving people at best out of control and at worst generically violent," says Reicher. "That is not only wrong, it's also counterproductive. If you believe all crowds are irrational, and that even rational people are liable to be dangerous in them, then you'll treat them accordingly, often harshly, and stop people doing things they have a right to do. And that can lead to violence."

If you believe all crowds are irrational and treat them accordingly, it can lead to violence

 

All that said, there's no question that being part of a group can sometimes lead people to do appalling things that they would usually abhor. Examples of crowd-fuelled violence abound, from Hutu death-squads in the Rwandan genocide to racist lynch mobs in the southern states of the US. Likewise, the cover crowds offer can attract individuals who are intent on causing trouble. We can all too easily be led astray by the influence of others (New Scientist, 14 April 2007, p 42).

 

However, crowd violence is actually extremely rare. "If 100 football matches happen on a Saturday and there is violence at one of them, we know which will appear on the front pages the next day," says Reicher. Widespread panic during crowd emergencies is also uncommon and only occurs in special circumstances, such as when escape routes start to close, says Tricia Wachtendorf of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware in Newark. In most situations - particularly those involving large numbers of strangers - the crowd ends up behaving remarkably sensibly.

 

Evidence against the irrationality of crowds has been building for some time, largely from studies of emergencies. In a study to be published in the British Journal of Social Psychology (DOI: 10.1348/014466608X357893), a team led by John Drury at the University of Sussex, UK, talked to survivors of 11 crowd-based disasters or near-disasters, including the 1989 Hillsborough stadium crush that killed 96 soccer fans, and a free concert by Fatboy Slim on Brighton beach in 2002 that was swamped by 250,000 people, four times as many as expected, and led to around 100 injuries. In each case, most interviewees recalled a strong sense of unity with those around them as a result of their shared experience. Rather than being competitive or antagonistic, people did their best to be orderly and courteous - and went out of their way to help strangers. Researchers think that without such cooperation, more people could have been injured and killed.

 

The team found a similar pattern of solidarity and cooperative behaviour in a study of the suicide attacks in London on 7 July 2005, which led to crowds of commuters being trapped underground (International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, vol 27, p 66). "The public in general and crowds specifically are more resilient than they are given credit for," says Drury. During disasters, governments should treat them as the "fourth emergency service", he adds.

 

If anything, a crowd's disinclination to panic can work against it. "It's often difficult to get people to move and act," says Wachtendorf. An analysis of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, for example, performed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, showed that most people prevaricated for several minutes after the planes struck, making phone calls, filing papers or shutting down their computers before attempting to escape.

 

Having established that unruly mob behaviour is the exception, researchers are now getting to grips with the psychological processes that can transform hundreds or thousands of individuals into a unit. The key, according to Drury, Reicher and others, is the recognition that you share something important with those around you, which forces you to identify with them in a meaningful way. "It is a cognitive shift, a difference in self-appraisal, in understanding who you are and how you stand in relation to others," says Reicher.

 

The trigger is often a dramatic situational change such as a fire in a public place or aggressive police tactics at a protest march, but group solidarity can also arise from seemingly inconsequential circumstances, such as being stuck together in a train carriage. Reicher describes it as a shift towards intimacy: "People start agreeing with each other, trusting each other," he says. At the point when members of a crowd start to share a common social identity, the crowd goes from being a mere physical entity to a psychological unit, according to Clifford Stott at the University of Liverpool, UK, who specialises in the behaviour of soccer crowds.

United by circumstances

 

A study carried out by Drury, Reicher and David Novelli of the University of Sussex, to be published in the British Journal of Social Psychology, provides a graphic illustration of how quickly and easily we throw ourselves into "psychological crowds" united by circumstances. The researchers divided a group of volunteers into two according to whether they overestimated or underestimated the number of dots in a pattern - a deliberately arbitrary distinction. They then told each person that they would be talking to someone either from their own group or the other, and that they should arrange some chairs in preparation. Those who had been told they would be talking to a member of their own group placed the chairs on average 20 per cent closer together than those who had been told they would be talking to a member of the other group (DOI: 10.1348/014466609X449377). "We want to be closer to fellow group members, not only metaphorically but also physically, and physical proximity is a precondition for any kind of action coordination," says Reicher.

 

The fluidity of group psychology was also demonstrated in a 2005 experiment on English soccer fans by Mark Levine at the University of Lancaster, UK. He found that supporters of Manchester United who had been primed to think about how they felt about their team were significantly more likely to help an injured stranger if he was wearing a Manchester United shirt, rather than an unbranded shirt or one of rival team Liverpool. However, fans who were primed to think about their experience of being a football fan in general were equally likely to help strangers in Liverpool shirts and Manchester United shirts, but far less likely to help someone wearing an unbranded one (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 31, p 443). This shows the potency of group membership, and also how fluid the boundaries can be.

 

This also happens in the real world, resulting in group bonding which, though transient, can override social, racial and political differences. A good example is the poll tax riots in London in 1990, when protestors from a wide spectrum of backgrounds and interest groups joined forces in the face of what they saw as overly aggressive police tactics. "You had people who were previously antagonistic - anarchists, conservatives, class-war activists - who in the context of the baton charges were united in common group membership," says Stott. This temporary homogenisation is common: think of the cohesiveness of soccer fans supporting an international team who might be hostile when supporting their own local clubs.

People who were previously antagonistic - anarchists, conservatives, class war activists - end up uniting in common group membership

 

Not everyone agrees. One criticism is that the cohesiveness of crowds is superficial, and that people preferentially draw close to those they know or are related to and remain far less attached to strangers around them. Anthony Mawson, an epidemiologist at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, maintains that people's typical response in times of threat is to seek out people familiar to them (Public Health Reports, vol 123, p 555). Strangers can develop a shared identity only when they are together "for long enough that a sense of camaraderie develops among them", he says.

 

Yet studies by Drury and others suggest the bonds that form between strangers in crowds are very robust, and although people might help family members first in an emergency, they will also help others irrespective of their connection to them. "What is really of interest," says Drury, "is why so many people - strangers without any formal organisation, hierarchy or means of communication - join together and act as one."

 

So where does this inclination come from to empathise so strongly with others on the basis of shared fate alone? Nobody is really sure, though it appears to be uniquely human. As Mark van Vugt at the University of Kent, UK, and Justin Park at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands point out, no other species appears to have the capacity to form rapid emotional attachments to large, anonymous groups (The Psychology of Prosocial Behaviour, published by Wiley-Blackwell next month). The tendency of people to form strong social bonds while experiencing terror together also appears a universal human trait. "This is well known in traditional societies where boys going through puberty rituals in the transition to manhood are often put through frightening experiences," says Robin Dunbar, who studies the evolution of sociality at the University of Oxford.

Control and contain

 

What are the lessons from all this? One of the most important is that the current approach to managing crowds, which is all about control and containment, can be counterproductive. Police tend to assume that people in crowds are prone to random acts of violence and disorder, and treat them accordingly. But aggressive policing is likely to trigger an aggressive response as the crowd reacts collectively against the external threat. This is why many researchers consider kettling to be a bad idea. "You're treating the crowd indiscriminately, and that can change the psychology of the crowd, shifting it towards rather than away from violence," says Stott. He has found that low-profile policing can significantly reduce the aggressiveness of football crowds, and that if left alone they will usually police themselves.

 

Emergency services should also take note: in a situation such as a terrorist attack or fire, a crowd left to its own devices will often find the best solution. Attempts to intervene to prevent people panicking, such as restricting their movements, could make panic more likely. The key, says Wachtendorf, is to give crowds as much information as possible, as they are likely to use it wisely.

 

If you find yourself in a crowd emergency, the worst thing you can do is resist the group mentality. One of Drury's conclusions from his research into disasters is that the more people try to act individualistically - which results in competitive and disruptive behaviour - the lower everyone's chances of survival are. This is what some researchers believe happened in August 1985 when a British Airtours plane caught fire on the runway at Manchester Airport, UK, killing 55. Non-cooperative behaviour among passengers may have made it harder for people to reach the exits.

 

It can be hard to shake off the idea of crowds as inherently violent or dangerous, but it is worth remembering that they have also been responsible for just about every major societal change for the good in recent history, from the success of the US civil rights movement to the overthrowing of communist regimes in eastern Europe. Good leadership and individual heroics are all very well, but if you're looking for a revolution - or even just a good way out of a difficult situation - what you really need, it seems, is a crowd.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2032....html?full=true

[The Fish 11080]

I, personally, fell off my chair howling with laughter at the plight of some poor bugger being escorted off the mortal coil. It's simply a moment of joy that I'll cling to forever more.

 

Just imagine if they'd sworn at him!

 

 

Well I, for one, think all police should operate without reproach and that all civilians are guilty until proven otherwise. It's just reasonable.

[Fop 1]

I, personally, fell off my chair howling with laughter at the plight of some poor bugger being escorted off the mortal coil. It's simply a moment of joy that I'll cling to forever more.

 

Just imagine if they'd sworn at him!

 

 

Well I, for one, think all police should operate without reproach and that all civilians are guilty until proven otherwise. It's just reasonable.

 

The JCHR disagrees.

 

The police did not properly respect the human rights of protesters and members of the public when they used controversial "kettling" techniques during the G20 demonstrations, a parliamentary committee has said.

 

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) said the Metropolitan Police "did not give sufficient weight" to the rights of individuals "contained" within police cordons, and that tactics such as "kettling" should be used only when it is "necessary and proportionate".

 

The MPs and Peers added that officers should use their own judgement concerning individuals inside the cordon.

 

The report, "Demonstrating Respect for Rights", said that containment should be used for as short a time as is needed and come under regular review.

 

The report said: "In our view it would be a disproportionate and unlawful response to cordon a group of people and operate a blanket ban on individuals leaving the contained area, as this fails to consider whether individual circumstances require a different response."

 

It added that it should be a legal requirement for police officers to display their identification tags, and recommended using independent negotiators to settle disputes between police and protesters.

 

The report concludes that police still have "a long way to go" before they succeed in protecting human rights in their training and operations.

 

http://itn.co.uk/7c768cac90f085bf44c9e721b9aa5588.html

[The Fish 11080]

well, in that case I reverse my imaginary position and instead think all civilians are innocent regardless of any evidence to the contrary, all police should be chastened and shackled the moment they pull on the uniform and we should live without any silly constraints such as law or order... it's only reasonable.

[Guest alex]

well, in that case I reverse my imaginary position and instead think all civilians are innocent regardless of any evidence to the contrary, all police should be chastened and shackled the moment they pull on the uniform and we should live without any silly constraints such as law or order... it's only reasonable.

Don't take the piss man. This is the sort of serious issue that can only be resolved with a forum discussion.

[Fop 1]

well, in that case I reverse my imaginary position and instead think all civilians are innocent regardless of any evidence to the contrary, all police should be chastened and shackled the moment they pull on the uniform and we should live without any silly constraints such as law or order... it's only reasonable.

 

Innocent until proven guilty?

 

You'll never get very far in the UK with silly and downright dangerous ideas like that.

[The Fish 11080]

well, in that case I reverse my imaginary position and instead think all civilians are innocent regardless of any evidence to the contrary, all police should be chastened and shackled the moment they pull on the uniform and we should live without any silly constraints such as law or order... it's only reasonable.

Don't take the piss man. This is the sort of serious issue that can only be resolved with a forum discussion.

 

Surely, instead of a forum discussion, a bout of one-upmanship would resolve whatever ails the world?

[Fop 1]

well, in that case I reverse my imaginary position and instead think all civilians are innocent regardless of any evidence to the contrary, all police should be chastened and shackled the moment they pull on the uniform and we should live without any silly constraints such as law or order... it's only reasonable.

Don't take the piss man. This is the sort of serious issue that can only be resolved with a forum discussion.

 

Surely, instead of a forum discussion, a bout of one-upmanship would resolve whatever ails the world?

Whatever gets the sheople to lift their heads from the grass.

[Guest alex]

well, in that case I reverse my imaginary position and instead think all civilians are innocent regardless of any evidence to the contrary, all police should be chastened and shackled the moment they pull on the uniform and we should live without any silly constraints such as law or order... it's only reasonable.

Don't take the piss man. This is the sort of serious issue that can only be resolved with a forum discussion.

 

Surely, instead of a forum discussion, a bout of one-upmanship would resolve whatever ails the world?

For the final time, leave the euphemisms to me, ok?

[The Fish 11080]

well, in that case I reverse my imaginary position and instead think all civilians are innocent regardless of any evidence to the contrary, all police should be chastened and shackled the moment they pull on the uniform and we should live without any silly constraints such as law or order... it's only reasonable.

Don't take the piss man. This is the sort of serious issue that can only be resolved with a forum discussion.

 

Surely, instead of a forum discussion, a bout of one-upmanship would resolve whatever ails the world?

Whatever gets the sheople to lift their heads from the grass.

 

Or, with regards to your bletherings, bury their head in their hands?

 

... and that is not a euphemism.

[Guest alex]

Don't take that activism too far mind!

[Fop 1]

well, in that case I reverse my imaginary position and instead think all civilians are innocent regardless of any evidence to the contrary, all police should be chastened and shackled the moment they pull on the uniform and we should live without any silly constraints such as law or order... it's only reasonable.

Don't take the piss man. This is the sort of serious issue that can only be resolved with a forum discussion.

 

Surely, instead of a forum discussion, a bout of one-upmanship would resolve whatever ails the world?

Whatever gets the sheople to lift their heads from the grass.

 

Or, with regards to your bletherings, bury their head in their hands?

 

... and that is not a euphemism.

 

Even you are now thinking about it, and given at what end of the demographic you reside, that is pretty impressive.

[The Fish 11080]

Trust me when I say I'm giving it little thought.

 

It's occupied the same amount of consideration as a possible big cat, less than where I'm going to go for dinner, but more than whether or not I should try and squeeze an innuendo into this post.

[Fop 1]

Trust me when I say I'm giving it little thought.

 

It's occupied the same amount of consideration as a possible big cat, less than where I'm going to go for dinner, but more than whether or not I should try and squeeze an innuendo into this post.

 

In fairness Fop wasn't expecting it to take up THAT much thought.

[The Fish 11080]

Pffft fairness. Where do you think you are?

[Fop 1]

'Mediators' proposed for protests

By Dominic Casciani

BBC News

 

G20 protests in London on 1 April 2009

The Human Rights Committee says the police need tactics

 

Independent Northern Ireland-style go-betweens could ease tensions between police and protesters, say MPs.

 

The Joint Committee on Human Rights said poor communications lay at the heart of problems at the G20 protests on 1 April.

 

Its report says a decision to "kettle" some of the London demonstrators had failed to recognise their rights.

 

The Metropolitan Police said it learned lessons from G20 and was committed to working with all protest groups.

 

One man died after the London protests and investigators are looking at other formal complaints about police actions.

 

'Share information'

 

The committee said there was a "long way to go" before police put human rights at the core of their planning and live operations.

 

In its review of the G20 protests, the MPs and peers argued that the Metropolitan Police became heavy-handed after a lack of communication between the two sides.

 

"Both protesters and police must share information," said the report. "Whilst this happens in many cases it is clear that at least some aspects of communication at the G20 protests were poor.

 

"Mutual distrust was apparent and the police and protesters seemed to have different expectations of what the dialogue should be about and how it should proceed.

 

"This ineffective communication led to frustration on both sides and, possibly, to the police taking a more heavy handed approach to the Climate Camp protest than would otherwise have been the case."

 

Tactics explained: How a police kettle works

 

Supporters of the eco-activist Climate Camp, which occupied a main road in London, are among the 270 to have complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

 

 

There is a long way to go before promoting and protecting human rights is central to police policy, training and operations

Joint Human Rights Committee

 

But the committee said the Climate Camp itself had also been "extremely unhelpful" because leaders had not provided the police with proper information about their plans.

 

"There is a case for considering the use of independent negotiators to facilitate dialogue between police and protests to overcome distrust and tensions," said the committee.

 

"Bodies such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary may be able to assist in identifying and assisting such negotiators and there may be scope to draw on good practice in this area in Northern Ireland."

 

The committee added that while "kettling" tactics used to contain crowds were lawful, a blanket ban on individuals leaving an area was disproportionate.

 

Andrew Dismore MP, the committee's chairman, said: "While kettling may be a helpful tactic, it can trap peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders for hours.

 

"There must be clear safeguards in place to make sure containment is used only when necessary and proportionate."

 

Legal duty

 

The committee also said officers should be legally obliged to wear their identifying numbers, after a number of complaints during the G20 that officers did not have them on display.

 

Commander Bob Broadhurst, who is in charge of the Met's public order policing said, "thousands of protests pass off without notice due to planning with the organisers".

 

"This report, along with other reviews, provides us with a valuable framework to move forward our approach to public order policing," he said

 

"We are committed to working towards achieving constructive dialogue with protest groups, who traditionally haven't wished to talk with us. We seek that same commitment from them."

 

The report comes as Sir Hugh Orde, Northern Ireland's former chief constable, takes over as the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). He has already called for human rights to be at the heart of modern policing.

 

Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes of Acpo said guidance on public order policing was being reviewed.

 

"Facilitating protest can be a difficult task for the police when balanced against the need to protect life and ensure that disorder does not break out," he said.

 

"It is clear that there are areas that can be improved and addressed as we review that guidance and we will study this report carefully as part of that process."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8171516.stm

[The Fish 11080]

Thank fuck for that, a Comittee.

[Fop 1]

Have you been at the filing cabinet again Fish?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8172707.stm