O/T Andy Burnham on Mank incident

[UlleyMiller]

Not in the UK

You know that's not possible

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...ending%20prick

Shame. Didn't want to trigger any changes to my search engine algorithms. Little Tommeh will have to wait for me to see that then.

Good site that BTW.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...oard%20Warrior

[KerrAvon]

First video: Clearly needs context, but no officer should be stamping on anyone's head.

I think you are overstating the position there.

In English criminal law a person is allowed to use reasonable force in defence of themselves or others. Depending on the circumstances you don’t have to wait to be attacked and the law (section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) expressly provides:

(a) that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
(b) that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

So, consider a hypothetical:

You and your work colleagues have been very violently assaulted. You have taken several significant blows to the head as have your colleagues to the point where you are unsure whether they are still ‘in play’ and able to defend themselves and others. There are at least two people present who have participated in the assault and you are unsure of the intentions of the others who are present. You are aware that you are carrying weapons that could, in the worst case scenario, be taken from you and turned against you and your colleagues.

You mange to take an assailant to the ground and could handcuff him to reduce the continuing risk that he poses, but doing so means making yourself very vulnerable by going to the ground yourself and turning your back on the other people present for several seconds.

In that situation, I think would want to make sure that the person I have taken to the ground stays there until the situation is under control and would take action to achieve that. For me, I think the notion that a person defending themselves and others ‘may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action’ comes to the fore in that scenario and the methods I might use to try to eliminate the immediate threat might be quite ugly.

The ‘optics’ of my actions in that scenario would probably not be good, but I don’t believe that would be a material consideration in the split second that I would have to react.

[Yak]

I’ve never had a problem at airports I comply with the rules and don’t put myself in a position to be confronted by anyone.
The police although it looks extreme did exactly the right thing imo.
If this was Tommy Robinson then a lot of people would be saying he deserved it and I’m no lover of him either but it’s relevant.
The police and other front line workers shouldn’t have to put up with a certain section of the public thinking they can do or say what they want.
Why haven’t they been arrested yet?
I think we know why dont we. We wouldn’t want any more riots in the street now would we.
Two tier policing as usual.

[KerrAvon]

I’ve never had a problem at airports I comply with the rules and don’t put myself in a position to be confronted by anyone.
The police although it looks extreme did exactly the right thing imo.
If this was Tommy Robinson then a lot of people would be saying he deserved it and I’m no lover of him either but it’s relevant.
The police and other front line workers shouldn’t have to put up with a certain section of the public thinking they can do or say what they want.
Why haven’t they been arrested yet?
I think we know why dont we. We wouldn’t want any more riots in the street now would we.
Two tier policing as usual.

Do you know that they weren't arrested?

[howdydoo]

Do you know that they weren't arrested?

They were definitely arrested.

I assume YAK is making the point, they haven't been charged with anything yet.

[Yak]

Apologies Kerr and Howdy is correct I meant charged yet.
Fast track them into court set an example if you abuse front line workers you will get locked up.

[UlleyMiller]

I think you are overstating the position there.

In English criminal law a person is allowed to use reasonable force in defence of themselves or others. Depending on the circumstances you don’t have to wait to be attacked and the law (section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) expressly provides:

(a) that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
(b) that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

So, consider a hypothetical:

You and your work colleagues have been very violently assaulted. You have taken several significant blows to the head as have your colleagues to the point where you are unsure whether they are still ‘in play’ and able to defend themselves and others. There are at least two people present who have participated in the assault and you are unsure of the intentions of the others who are present. You are aware that you are carrying weapons that could, in the worst case scenario, be taken from you and turned against you and your colleagues.

You mange to take an assailant to the ground and could handcuff him to reduce the continuing risk that he poses, but doing so means making yourself very vulnerable by going to the ground yourself and turning your back on the other people present for several seconds.

In that situation, I think would want to make sure that the person I have taken to the ground stays there until the situation is under control and would take action to achieve that. For me, I think the notion that a person defending themselves and others ‘may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action’ comes to the fore in that scenario and the methods I might use to try to eliminate the immediate threat might be quite ugly.

The ‘optics’ of my actions in that scenario would probably not be good, but I don’t believe that would be a material consideration in the split second that I would have to react.

The first point was around context, and a wider view of the location, support options etc should be seriously considered, as should prior events (of which I've seen only one other video).

A couple of points around the hypothetical:
1) I'm amazed the threat of the weapon wasn't enough to deter this situation (the numbers involved, not necessarily one person trying their luck), and I'm still not clear why weapons aren't used as deterrents with greater efficacy. I'm not hoping to see an American approach to policing but the breach point must be extremely niche in the UK.
2) I'm not an officer, have no weapons, and don't have a particularly thorough understanding of training in situations like this. I'm aware of the extent to which officers are pushed when they're put in vehicles (and the limitations/expectations around that), so I can't imagine it's a token 2 day course. I've also had an insight into taser training, which seems like it's more than just a brief summary of rules and how to use.

I think it's inevitable that there will be a significant deal of scrutiny around the events and how things played out but in a time when the police face an unreasonable amount of public pressure already, I think the stamp will be a focal point. The optics are not good, and play into the hands of groups I alluded to in a prior post who will use this to whip up more hysteria and anti-police sentiment. I've no interest in knocking the efforts of our 'thin blue line', but there are tactics which should be more ingrained by training than instinct.

[howdydoo]

These events have certainly highlighted one thing.

Akhmed Yakoob is a d!ckhead.

Never heard so much nonsense. What a tool.

[KerrAvon]

Apologies Kerr and Howdy is correct I meant charged yet.
Fast track them into court set an example if you abuse front line workers you will get locked up.

No worries.

The lowest level of charge that is likely to be considered is ABH, which means the case will have to go to the CPS for a charging decision. They are likely to wait until the IOPC has investigated the officer. In my experience, the IOPC moves at a glacial speed when its in a hurry.

I suspect that the CPS will then defer the decision to the independent bar and probably Treasury Counsel given how ‘politicised’ the case has become.

I feel sorry for the prosecutor, Jury members and judge who will have to deal with this case (assuming that there are charges in the case of the last two). They will all know that whatever they do will criticised by those members of the audience who have already made their decisions and really don’t care about pesky stuff like evidence.

[KerrAvon]

These events have certainly highlighted one thing.

Akhmed Yakoob is a d!ckhead.

Never heard so much nonsense. What a tool.

Yes. I was 'quite unimpressed'.