The consequences are unpredictable, regardless of what any revolutionary theorist may pretend, and often unwelcome.
The death of Ian Tomlinson following the clear and horrific assault by a police officer at the G20 demonstration may also be such a tipping point. The attack was sickening, but it was not a real surprise to anyone who has ever watched the Police at public demonstrations.
I saw their wrongful use of force myself at the Countryside Alliance demonstration on 15th September 2004, where I went along out of curiosity after work (I was then a civil servant at a near-by department). That day, I actually witnessed police just lashing out at bystanders. It was surreal, and it was the moment when I lost respect for the police.
The police simply think they can get away with whatever they want. This is not an overstatement, for to a large extent they can. But they now have power without respect.
However, following the entirely correct outcry about the death of Mr Tomlinson, the police may now find that they no longer can get away with their habitual excessive and random force at public demonstrations.
The police may well find crowds less deferent and more confrontational at the next public demonstration. Some extremists would like this, just to see the police in fear and surrounded; but I would not. There is the need for police, and there is a need for certain norms of public order to be enforced.
So for their own protection as well as ours, the police really need to rethink their disgraceful and (in my view) unlawful behaviour at public demonstrations.
And the police officer who assaulted Mr Tomlinson should be named, arrested and prosecuted. If this is done, the Police may perhaps regain some legitimacy.
But I have a sinking feeling that this will not happen.
Posts
8 comment(s):
It is disgusting and I feel really upset about it.
Especially when they tried to smear protesters originally by saying that we prevented paramedic getting to him by throwing bottles.
Disgraceful!
Where is their honour?
I understand that a demo can be stressful for the police and that at times they are verbally provoked but their training should enable them to handle that stress.
I totally agree Jack. Power administered without thought and responsibility leads to bad things happening.
On a side note, surely they can't hold the police officer accountable for Mr Tomlinson's death? As reprehensible as the officer's action was, how can they establish the push directly led to his death? How are we to know that he wasn't going to have a heart attack anyway? Statistically, it's not that unlikely for an individual in that large crowd to suffer one just out of chance.
Are the public and media not jumping to a bad conclusion?
Andy,
You will notice that I carefully refer to holding the police officer accountable for the assault of Mr Tomlinson.
Looks like you have jumped to a conclusion as to what you thought I was saying...
Hi Jack,
Sorry, when I said "surely they can't hold the police officer accountable for Mr Tomlinson's death?", I didn't intend to imply that that is what you were saying (that's why I used the word "they"), but some people I've heard on TV do seem to be saying that.
It was intended to be a question to people like yourself who know more about these legal matters than I do.
Question. If the police officer responsible is identified, will they also prosecute/chastise the officers around him who failed to take action against their colleague's act of thuggery?
Andy
The central legal issue will be causation. If the assault, which in my view is undeniable, caused the subsequent death, then they are open to a manslaughter prosecution. If the prosection could show an intent to GBH then it could even be murder.
For me, the assault is horrific in itself. Even if the subsequent heart attack cannot be shown to be caused by the assault, the police officer should be arrested and prosecuted.
Jack
Here's a letter, published in the Guardian in February, that is interesting in the context of the way the evidence has emerged here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/police-public-surveillance
"Last Friday I sat as a JP, judging an unemployed man accused of assaulting a policeman, mostly in view of a council street camera. He had earlier been refused legal aid and the Crown Prosecution Service had denied him advance access to the pictures. He only saw them when we did, during his trial.
He told us that a passerby had also filmed the incident on a mobile. He was right. We saw the photographer on the council tape. The defendant said police had demanded the person's mobile and deleted the pictures. When asked in court, the officer confirmed that this was the case, the reason being to stop police being on YouTube. From the casual way it was agreed in open court, it seems it is normal Met practice to seize mobiles in order to delete pictures involving them."
Why has the identity of the police officer who clearly committed this unnecessary and unprovoked assault, not named and shamed? Could fear of such future recriminations not help police the police?
Post a Comment