[Sambo2]

I know they have to do their jobs and maintain basic law and order, but.. it did seem that the police tactics where extremely and perhaps at times unnecessarily violent - even to the press... - restriction of freedoms?? What do people think?

[Aack]

I agree with you on this.

I think it was strange that they were restricting peoples movement even though they wanted to leave.

I suppose they need to show they are in control by dealing with the abuse swiftly, but I thought it looked a bit excessive.

[Reue]

Standard british police tactic in multiple protest group situations is to isolate the groups, confine them and then eventually release them slowly group by group. It's been this way for many years.

The postitive is that it reduces the chance of large scale damage however it is seen as quite heavy handed and can aggitate what would otherwise have been peaceful protestors.

Personally I am very much against it. We are supposed to live in an 'innocent untill proven guilty' society and so I cannot see how they can justify effectivly imprisioning en-mass protestors on the chance that they may cause some damage.

[AustralAlien]

Peaceful protests seem to become violent ones due to the boxing in tactics used by the police. From their perspective it's the best way of managing large crowds but I think the protestors don't see it that way.

[Polka_Dot_Queen]

I disagree. Some of the protestors are peaceful, but there is a lot of people that just go to cause violence. The police are trying to protect innocent citizens that get caught up in these situations, such as the RBS branch being smashed into. The customer advisors and other people that work in that particularly branch aren't the cause of the recession and they are being attacked for something they have no control over. There is no respect for the police these days, if there was then the protests would have been peaceful and they could of worked in conjunction with the police, rather than planning illegal protests.

[Howard]

The police are clueless. They don't know how to manage a protest without inflaming it.

[k823127]

In today's society, with today's budget i think the police do a good job dealing with the crap that some (thankfully the minority) people think it's okay to do. The protests turned violent, you can't expect them to go in with offers of tea and biscuits to calm it down, the force they placed on the protesters was more than necessary and in my opinion more force should be used if people think it's okay to behave like mere animals.

[TheBlindestPilot]

It is very hard to differentiate between the peaceful protester and red flag waving anarchist ****. I think we would all agree that the violent part of the protest needed to be controlled yes? And as the 2 groups were mixed together, the police had no other option.

[Marco1]

I think the tactic of boxing in and containment is simply about limiting damage and disorder. There will always be the small number of agitators that just want to have a go at authority and don't mind using violence etc. Also there will be those who get carried away in the passion of the crowd. They spoil it for the rest of all the normal peaceful protesters. If the police stood back and spread themselves thinly over the whole route they wouldn't be able to deal with any arising disorder at all. I don't think the present containment tactic is very fair to the peaceful protesters and it inflames the emotions and understandably makes people angry when they are hemmed in. However I cannot think of a better alternative that would prevent a possible rampage at the end, by the trouble makers in the crowd that have just gone along for a good ruck, and innocent people getting hurt in all the chaos, more buildings being smashed etc. I think it comes down to not having a more agreeable tactic to employ - considering available police resources.

[C_B_C]

I think they do a good job to be honest.

[fire2burn]

Police boxing tactics are counter productive, the attack on the RBS bank happened after the police had kettled the protesters in and prevented them from leaving. Up until this point the protest was entirely peaceful with no arrests. The police in the case of the G20 protests inflamed the situation, and turned a peaceful protest violent.

[fire2burn]

(Original post by Polka_Dot_Queen)
I disagree. Some of the protestors are peaceful, but there is a lot of people that just go to cause violence. The police are trying to protect innocent citizens that get caught up in these situations, such as the RBS branch being smashed into. The customer advisors and other people that work in that particularly branch aren't the cause of the recession and they are being attacked for something they have no control over. There is no respect for the police these days, if there was then the protests would have been peaceful and they could of worked in conjunction with the police, rather than planning illegal protests.

There was nothing illegal about the G20 protests, the police were notified of the marches 4 weeks in advance so had plenty of time to prepare. The majority of the march and protest was peaceful, it comprised of 4 seperate groups each lead by a horseman figure which converged in the area outside the bank of England. Up until this point the protests were entirely peaceful with no arrests. However once the protesters had converged in preparation for the rally and speeches, the police then decided to blockade the protesters outside the bank to prevent the march from continuing.

By kettling the protesters and preventing them from leaving tensions were increased which were released violently, indeed the attack on the RBS branch which was empty at the time only occurred after marchers were prevented from leaving. The police in the case of the G20 marches were in the wrong, they turned a good natured protest into a small scale riot. If they'd let the protesters leave the area and continue to the rallies I doubt you'd have seen any violence at all on the day.

[Polka_Dot_Queen]

(Original post by fire2burn)
There was nothing illegal about the G20 protests, the police were notified of the marches 4 weeks in advance so had plenty of time to prepare. The majority of the march and protest was peaceful, it comprised of 4 seperate groups each lead by a horseman figure which converged in the area outside the bank of England. Up until this point the protests were entirely peaceful with no arrests. However once the protesters had converged in preparation for the rally and speeches, the police then decided to blockade the protesters outside the bank to prevent the march from continuing.

By kettling the protesters and preventing them from leaving tensions were increased which were released violently, indeed the attack on the RBS branch which was empty at the time only occurred after marchers were prevented from leaving. The police in the case of the G20 marches were in the wrong, they turned a good natured protest into a small scale riot. If they'd let the protesters leave the area and continue to the rallies I doubt you'd have seen any violence at all on the day.

If the protests were expected to be peaceful, then why did business's in that area feel the need to tell their employees to dress down for work. Why did banks and other corporate buildings have to board up their windows?
I am not saying that ALL the protests were illegal, but some of the people that went hadn't informed the police.
Also, you can't entirely blame the police here, they have a job to do - protect citizens - and that is what they aimed to do. They cannot predict if all the protestors will definitely leave the area, so they have to do whatever they feel necessary.

[fire2burn]

(Original post by Polka_Dot_Queen)
If the protests were expected to be peaceful, then why did business's in that area feel the need to tell their employees to dress down for work. Why did banks and other corporate buildings have to board up their windows?

Maybe because the media blew all things out of proportion when quoting Anthropology lecturer Professor Chris Knight when he said they intended to hang effigies of bankers along the route of the march. That somehow got interpreted by the Express, Mail and Evening Standard as rabid anarchists intend to plant bombs and assault bankers!!!!11111111!

I am not saying that ALL the protests were illegal, but some of the people that went hadn't informed the police.

You don't have to inform the police of your intent to join a protest, there is no legal obligation to do so. The organisers of the marches whoever had informed the police and as such the police were notified and organised for the day. So this your talk of illegal protests is rubbish. There isn't even a legal obligation to inform the police of a protest, I can assemble 20-30 people right now and protest outside my local HSBC if I so choose, there is nothing illegal about that. The only time you have to inform the police is if a march or procession is going to take place i.e. moving from point A to point B, the protesters had already done this thus the whole thing is legally watertight.

Also, you can't entirely blame the police here, they have a job to do - protect citizens - and that is what they aimed to do. They cannot predict if all the protestors will definitely leave the area, so they have to do whatever they feel necessary.

They didn't need to predict as to whether the protesters were going to leave the area, the protesters would have voluntarily left to finish off the march and rally. Any who stayed behind to cause trouble would have been left behind by the march and could have been dealt with individually. Instead of following common sense the police risked the safety of everyone by inflaming what was a peaceful carnival atmosphere at the time. What do you expect people to do when protesting peacefully and suddenly for no reason the police are blocking you in and violating your right to peaceful protest and the freedom of movement? People most certainly aren't going to submit to arbitrary arrest and detention and be civil about it.

[Polka_Dot_Queen]

(Original post by fire2burn)
Maybe because the media blew all things out of proportion when quoting Anthropology lecturer Professor Chris Knight when he said they intended to hang effigies of bankers along the route of the march. That somehow got interpreted by the Express, Mail and Evening Standard as rabid anarchists intend to plant bombs and assault bankers!!!!11111111!



You don't have to inform the police of your intent to join a protest, there is no legal obligation to do so. The organisers of the marches whoever had informed the police and as such the police were notified and organised for the day. So this your talk of illegal protests is rubbish. There isn't even a legal obligation to inform the police of a protest, I can assemble 20-30 people right now and protest outside my local HSBC if I so choose, there is nothing illegal about that. The only time you have to inform the police is if a march or procession is going to take place i.e. moving from point A to point B, the protesters had already done this thus the whole thing is legally watertight.



They didn't need to predict as to whether the protesters were going to leave the area, the protesters would have voluntarily left to finish off the march and rally. Any who stayed behind to cause trouble would have been left behind by the march and could have been dealt with individually. Instead of following common sense the police risked the safety of everyone by inflaming what was a peaceful carnival atmosphere at the time. What do you expect people to do when protesting peacefully and suddenly for no reason the police are blocking you in and violating your right to peaceful protest and the freedom of movement? People most certainly aren't going to submit to arbitrary arrest and detention and be civil about it.

I am not going to even try to argue against you, because you won't even try to understand the view I am coming from. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a full blown argument!